CMCDC 2013 ANNUAL REPORT - Province of...

Canada-Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre – 2013 Annual Report

CMCDC

2013 ANNUAL REPORT

Diversification Program

MHPEC Inc.


Canada-Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre P.O. Box 309

Carberry, Manitoba R0K 0H0

Tel. (204) 834-6000 Fax. (204) 834-3777

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1185205367529&lang=eng


Contents

Extension ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Staff ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... 3 CMCDC Sites – Aerial Photos and Plot Locations ....................................................................... 4 Weather at CMCDC sites ............................................................................................................ 8

Research Project Reports ........................................................................................................... 11 Evaluation of cultivar growth rate and maturity under varying environmental and soil conditions in Manitoba ................................................................................................................................... 11 Effects of row spacing and seeding rate on soybean in Manitoba .............................................. 16 4R P Management for soybeans in the Northern Frontier: rate and placement effects on plant stand, biomass and seed yield .................................................................................................. 30 Western Canada soybean adaptation under irrigation & dry land production .................................. 36 Effect of fungicide timing on grain yield and quality of winter wheat varieties with different levels of resistance to fusarium head blight ......................................................................................... 38 Forage mixtrure establishment with/without barley as nurse crop .............................................. 42 Effect of row spacing on buckwheat grain yield ......................................................................... 46 Buckwheat variety testing ............................................................................................................ 53 Industrial hemp variety evaluation ............................................................................................. 54 Phosphorus ramp demonstration ............................................................................................... 59 Narrow row edible bean variety testing ......................................................................................... 61 Snap bean variety evaluation .................................................................................................... 63 Multi coloured tomato variety evaluation .................................................................................... 70 Multi coloured pepper variety evaluation.................................................................................... 76 Evaluation of Manure Compost on Vegetable Production .......................................................... 82 Evaluation of new fruit crops for Manitoba ................................................................................ 85 Adaptability of Hops in Manitoba ............................................................................................... 87 Western Forage Testing System ............................................................................................... 88 Adaptation of Jerusalem Artichoke to Central Plains (Carberry) region for inulin production. ..... 90 Potato variety evaluation for starch production in Manitoba. ...................................................... 93

1


Extension In addition to the information provided in the Annual Report, a number of technology transfer/outreach activities were conducted at the three CMCDC sites in 2012, namely:

1. July 18 – CMCDC Carberry Crop Diversification Tour

2. July 25 – Portage Crop Diversification Tour (joint event held annually by CMCDC and the Crop

Research Organization of Portage (CROP))

3. Aug 1 –Horticulture Diagnostic School (event hosted annually by CMCDC and coordinated by

MAFRD and Assiniboine Community College (ACC))

4. Aug 18 – Carberry Soil and Water Management Workshop.

5. Aug 21 – Winkler Potato Tour

CMCDC also participates annually at Brandon Ag Days, co-hosting a booth display with the other Manitoba Diversification Centres Visitors are always welcome at all the CMCDC sites. Call us or drop in for more information on anything in this report, or any of our programs and activities. Contact information is provided with each of the technical reports.

2


Staff AAFC provided six staff positions dedicated full-time to CMCDC - the Centre Manager, Potato Agronomist/Portage Site Supervisor, Agronomist, Carberry Site Supervisor, Research Support Lead Hand, and Office Administrator. AAFC also provides four seasonal support positions, and summer students.

Manitoba provides one full-time on-site position at Carberry - the Diversification Specialist, and summer students. Manitoba also dedicates portions of other Provincial Specialists’ time to CMCDC programs.

MHPEC provides financial support for seasonal support staff, summer students, and casual labour.

CMCDC Staff – 2013 Carberry Site Supporting Full time staff CMCDC Partner Position Brian Baron AAFC Site Supervisor Craig Linde MAFRD Diversification Specialist Alison Nelson AAFC Agronomist (Winnipeg) Sherree Strain AAFC Office Administrator Seasonal/Term staff Erin Anderson MHPEC Site Assistant Bernie Brecknell AAFC Field Research Assistant Eric Claeys AAFC Field Operations Assistant Amanda Kowalchuk MHPEC Site Assistant Dave Paluch AAFC Field Operations Assistant Summer students/Casual staff Muhammad Ayoub AAFC Summer Research Assistant Sophie Gabutero AAFC Summer Research Assistant Kevin James AAFC Summer Research Assistant Bingqing (Gloria) Li AAFC Summer Research Assistant Darcy Manns MAFRD Summer Research Assistant Portage la Prairie Site Full time staff Danny Bouchard AAFC Field Research Assistant Curtis Cavers AAFC Potato Agronomist/ Site Supervisor Seasonal/Term staff Scott Jackson AAFC Field Operations Assistant Neil Jordan MHPEC Field Operations Assistant Babatunde Nuga MHPEC Site Assistant Henry Wolfe AAFC Field Research Assistant Summer students/Casual staff Samantha Anderson AAFC Summer Research Assistant Jenny Fehr MAFRD Summer Research Assistant Jane Klippenstein AAFC Summer Research Assistant Janessa Mankewich MHPEC Summer Research Assistant Nathan Warthe MHPEC Summer Research Assistant

3


Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAFC – Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

ARDI – Agri-Food Research and Development Inititative

ASI – Agriculture Sustainability Initiative

CMCDC – Canada-Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre

CROP – Crop Research Organization of Portage

CV – Coefficient of Variation

LSD – Least Significant Difference

MAFRD – Manitoba Agirculture, Food and Rural Development

MBGA – Manitoba Buckwheat Growers Association

MCVET – Manitoba Crop Variety Evaluation Team

MHPEC – Manitoba Horticulture Productivity Enhancement Centre Inc.

MPGA – Manitoba Pulse Growers Association

MSAPP – Manitoba Sustainable Agriculture Practices Program

MWS – Manitoba Water Stewardship

PCDF – Parkland Crop Diversification Foundation

PESAI – Prairies East Sustainable Agricultural Initiative

WADO – Westman Agricultural Diversification Organization

4


CMCDC Sites – Aerial Photos and Plot Locations

5


6


7


CMCD

C W

inkl

er S

ite 2

013

BASF

plo

ts

1.

Contr

olle

d T

ile D

rain

ag

e P

ota

to R

ese

arc

h T

rial

2.

AA

FC

(M

ord

en)

Bean T

rials

3.

Gaia

Consu

lting

Pota

to R

ese

arc

h T

rials

4.

MA

FR

D P

ota

to D

em

onst

ratio

n P

lots

5.

AA

FC

Natio

nal P

ota

to V

ari

ety

Tri

als

1

2

34

55

5

2

8


Weather at CMCDC sites

April through October 2013

Figure 1. Monthly temperature at CMCDC-Carberry.

Figure 2. Monthly precipitation at CMCDC-Carberry.

9


Figure 3. Monthly temperature at CMCDC-Portage la Prairie.

Figure 4. Monthly precipitation at CMCDC-Portage la Prairie.

10


Figure 5. Monthly temperature at CMCDC-Winkler.

Figure 6. Monthly precipitation at CMCDC-Winkler.

11


Research Project Reports

Evaluation of Soybean cultivar growth rate and maturity under varying environmental and

soil conditions in Manitoba Principal Investigators: Ramona Mohr, AAFC – Brandon Aaron Glenn, AAFC – Brandon Byron Irvine, AAFC – Brandon Co-Investigators: Craig Linde, CMCDC – Carberry Paula Halabicki, PESAI – Arborg Jeff Kostuik, PCDF – Roblin Scott Chalmers, WADO – Melita Support: Growing Forward 2 Progress: Year 3 of 3 Objective: 1. Relate different methods of thermal time to yield of soybeans

across agro-Manitoba. 2. Relate accumulated thermal time to growth stage observations. Contact Information: [email protected] Introduction The development of soybean cultivars requiring fewer heat units has allowed expansion of soybean in Manitoba in recent years. Despite these advances, risks associated with delayed seeding and early-season frost continue to be considerations when growing soybean. Successful production requires an understanding of the factors influencing growth rate and maturity so that management practices can be adapted to optimize the genetic potential of the cultivars being grown in a given region. The soybean plant responds both to day length and to heat units. As such, the development of the crop is influenced not only by growing season temperature and the accumulation of heat units, but also by latitude. Crop development is further influenced by factors such as variety selection, moisture stress and management (e.g. fertilization, crop establishment practices, etc.) (McWilliams et al. 1999; Soybean Growth and Management Quick Guide. A-1174.). Efforts are currently underway to develop growth models for North Dakota (Kandel and Akyuz 2012; http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/cpr/plant-science/growing-degree-day-model-for-north-dakota-soybean-6-28-12). However, information regarding the relationship between environmental conditions and soybean development and maturity is lacking for Agro-Manitoba. Methods Field experiments evaluating the phenology and agronomic performance of three early maturing soybean varieties (Table 1) were conducted at eight locations in southern Manitoba (Table 2) over the growing seasons of 2011 (six sites), 2012 (eight sites), and 2013 (eight sites). Sites chosen for the study spanned a latitudinal gradient of approximately 2° or 222 km and an elevation gradient of more than 300 m (Table 2). Soil texture at the eight sites ranged from loamy sand (Melita), clay loam (Beausejour, Brandon, Carberry, Morden, Portage, Roblin), to clay (Arborg). The Portage,

12


Melita, Beausejour and Arborg sites had imperfect internal soil drainage while the remaining four sites were well drained. Table 1. Characteristics of the three soybean varieties used for the growth and maturity trials in 2012.

Soybean Cultivar Company Heat Units

Maturity Group Manitoba Variety Zone

Cultivar 1 2325 00.1 Short-season Cultivar 2 2475 00.7 Long-season Cultivar 3 2525 0.0 Long-season

Table 2. Latitude (°North of the equator), elevation (metres above sea level), cumulative crop heat units (30-year normal for May 15 to September 15 from the nearest Environment Canada station), precipitation (30-year normal for May 15 to September 15 from the nearest Environment Canada station) and first fall frost (50% risk based on the 30-year normal) of the eight different sites used in the study.

Site Latitude (°N)

Elevation (m)

∑Crop Heat Units

Precipitation (mm)

First Fall Frost

Arborg 50.90 229 2384 275 September 11

Beausejour 50.08 240 2496 295 September 21

Brandon 50.02 472 2316 258 September 14

Carberry 49.90 380 2316 258 September 15

Melita 49.27 440 2428 301 September 14

Morden 49.18 295 2635 280 September 23

Portage la Prairie

49.96 260 2513 290 September 24

Roblin 51.18 544 2162 251 September 8

At all sites, a randomized complete block design consisting of three replicates of the three cultivars was established. Soybean was typically planted in mid-May to early-June using a standard plot seeder, and harvested from September to October using a small plot combine. Plot size and row spacing varied as a function of the equipment available at each site; however, in all site-years, soybean was planted into small plots using narrow (20-30 cm) row spacing. Standard management practices for each region were employed. Details regarding each site and field operations are reported in Table A1 in the Appendix. Measurements conducted included: plant density, lodging score, height at maturity, yield, crop development periodically throughout vegetative and reproductive stages, yield, and seed quality (test weight, 1000 seed weight, percent oil and protein). Where seed moisture at harvest was measured, reported yields were adjusted to 14% moisture. At the remainder of sites, yields are reported on an air-dry basis. Oil and protein concentrations for all site-years were determined on an Infratec™ Grain Analyzer (Foss North America Inc., Eden Prairie, MN). Initial analysis of yield and seed quality measurements for each year demonstrated differences among locations and cultivars in almost all cases, as well as interactions between location and cultivar. Therefore, for

13


the purpose of this report, yield and grain quality data were analyzed by site-year using Proc Mixed in SAS, with cultivar considered a fixed effect and replicate considered a random effect. Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure was employed to identify differences among cultivars within a given site-year. At three of the trial locations in 2011 (Brandon, Morden and Roblin), five in 2012 (Arborg, Beausejour, Carberry, Melita and Roblin) and all eight sites in 2013, simple, battery-powered microclimate stations (Decagon Devices, Inc.; Figure 1) were used to monitor site-specific conditions near or above the soybean canopies in order to complement and relate to local and regional weather data obtained from weather stations operated by Environment Canada and MAFRD. The variables measured included air temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, incident solar radiation, wind speed and direction. Growing degree days (GDD) and CHU were calculated from the daily maximum and minimum temperatures recorded at each site. For the Carberry and Portage locations in 2011, data obtained from local weather stations operated by Environment Canada and MAFRD were used. For the Morden, Portage, and Brandon trial locations in 2012, data obtained from local weather stations operated by Environment Canada, MAFRD and AAFC, respectively, were used. According to the company heat units assigned to each of the varieties (Table 1), five of the eight sites receive enough crop heat units (CHU) on average for Cultivar 1 to mature, three of the eight sites receive enough CHU on average for Cultivar 2, and only one site (Morden) would have the thermal requirements for all three varieties grown during the trials (Table 2).

Figure 1. Inter-comparison of the microclimate stations used in the soybean growth and maturity trails in 2012, conducted beside the primary weather station at Brandon Research Centre prior to deployment to the different trial locations in southern Manitoba. Photograph taken April 30, 2012.

14


Results and Discussion Growing Season Length The soybean trials were planted between May 15 and June 13 during the three years of the experiment (Table 3). Soybeans should not be planted until the soil temperature has reached 10°C (ref. 1), which is usually not until around May 15 or later on average in southern Manitoba. This limit on the minimum recommended soil temperature prior to planting means that producers generally plant soybeans later than other crops in the region and the risk of exposing emerged seedlings to a spring frost is low in most locations. Most trials were planted earlier in 2012 relative to the other two years of the study (Table 3), as there was less snow over the winter and an earlier spring snowmelt. Table 3. Planting dates at the different sites for the three years of the study. All three cultivars were planted on the same date for each location. The average daily soil temperature at a depth of 5 cm below a grassed surface is given for the Brandon location in parentheses.

Site 2011 2012 2013

Arborg --- May 31 May 23 Beausejour --- May 16 May 24 Brandon May 26 (Tsoil = 12°C) June 1 (Tsoil = 13°C) May 22 (Tsoil = 11°C) Carberry May 26 May 16 May 22 Melita --- May 16 May 15 Morden (zero-till) May 20 May 16 May 16 Morden (conventional till)

May 26 n/a n/a

Portage la Prairie June 13 May 17 June 5 Roblin May 25 May 17 May 29

The soil temperature at a depth of 5 cm beneath grass at the Brandon location was two degrees warmer at a later seeding date in 2012 compared to 2013 (Table 3). Seedling emergence occurred 6 days after planting (June 7) in Brandon in 2012 compared to 20 days after planting (June 10) in 2013. This is a difference of almost two weeks between planting and emergence, and highlights the role that warmer soil temperatures can have on germination and emergence. Although the planting in Brandon was 10 days later in 2012 compared to 2013 (Table 3), the seedlings emerged earlier and therefore had more time to grow and mature prior to a normal first fall frost date (Table 2). A similar trend was observed between the two sites located at Morden in 2011 between planting date and timing of seedling emergence. Although the conventional till plots were planted six days later than the zero-till plots, seedling emergence was only one day later on average, giving a similar length and timing of the growing season for the plants from both sites. The majority of site-years investigated during the study were harvested after the first killing frost in the fall (Table 4). In 2011, four of the six locations had growing seasons terminated by frost, with only the two sites at Morden harvested prior (Table 4). In 2012, five sites had growing seasons ended by frost, while three sites were harvested prior. In 2013, six of the sites had growing seasons terminated by frost, two sites were harvested prior (Table 4). Only the Morden location was harvested prior to frost all three years of the study (Table 4), which may be expected as the only location with sufficient CHU on average (Table 2) for all varieties grown (Table 1). Of the locations in western Manitoba, only Carberry and Melita in 2012 were harvested prior to frost. This finding highlights the second component of the major limitation to growing soybeans throughout agricultural Manitoba (length of the growing season), after the constraint of having minimum soil temperatures prior to planting. The occurrence of first fall frost was near- to slightly-later than normal for the locations in 2011 and 2012 (Table 2; Table 4), while it was later to much-later than

15


normal for the sites in 2013 (Table 2; Table 4). Harvest was delayed in 2013 due to a cooler than normal period from mid-July to mid-August across southern Manitoba, which delayed soybean maturity. Mid-August through the end of September was warmer than normal in 2013 which helped the trials to mature prior to frost. Only the Brandon location experienced a frost in September 2013, the remaining sites did not until October (Table 4). Despite the tendency for harvest to occur at the majority of sites post-frost during the experiment, all three varieties made it to at least physiological maturity (growth stage R7) at most sites and years, with the only exception being Cultivar 3 (Table 1) at Arborg in 2012. At R7, the soybean plant is at physiological maturity and frost has little effect on seed yield (ref. 2) although seed moisture may be slightly higher and seed size and quality slightly reduced compared to pods that dry down and reach harvest maturity (growth stage R8) prior to frost (ref. 3). In 2011 at Brandon, 2012 at Carberry, and 2012 and 2013 at Roblin, Cultivar 2 and Cultivar 3 (Table 1) did not make it to R8 prior to first frost. Had frost occurred at a date closer to normal in 2013, there would have been more locations where varieties failed to reach to the R7 or R8 stages. Agricultural Meteorological Conditions and Agronomic Performance There was a wide range of meteorological conditions encountered and yields obtained for the three cultivars over the three years of the experiment at the various locations (Table 5; Table 6; Table 7). Significant linear relationships between GDD and CHU were found for all locations and years studied (data not shown). It was therefore decided to only use CHU as the indication of thermal time to initially relate to yield and phenology (growth staging) to reduce redundancy and because CHU were used by seed companies in Canada for rating the suitability of soybean cultivars to different geographical regions. In 2011, most sites experienced near-normal CHU over the periods from planting to first fall frost or harvest (Table 5), and only the Morden site had sufficient cumulative CHU (Table 5) for all three soybean varieties grown according to the company ratings (Table 1). The yields were similar for the three varieties grown at Morden in 2011, however the conventional tillage treatment had higher yields than zero-tillage did at the site (Table 5). The Portage location would normally have sufficient CHU for all three varieties, however due to the late planting date of the trial in 2011 (June 13, Table 3) the site only had enough CHU over the period from planting to frost for Cultivar 1. This was reflected in yields, with Cultivar 1 having a significantly higher yield than Cultivar 2 and Cultivar 3 in 2011 at Portage (Table 5). The Brandon, Carberry, and Roblin locations did not have enough CHU for any of the varieties grown in 2011 according to the company heat unit ratings (Table 1; Table 5). The Brandon and Carberry locations had over 90% of the CHU recommended for Cultivar 1, while the Roblin site had only 85% of required heat units in 2011. The yields of the three cultivars at the three cooler western locations were Cultivar 1 > Cultivar 2 > Cultivar 3 (Table 5), as would be expected from the company heat unit ratings and the agroclimatology in 2011. However, the Roblin site had the highest yield for Cultivar 1 across all locations in 2011, and an overall soybean yield that was comparable to those achieved at Portage and the conventional tillage plots at Morden (Table 5), indicating that factors other than CHU played an important role in determining soybean yield at the sites.

16


Effects of row spacing and seeding rate on soybean in Manitoba

Principal Investigators: Ramona Mohr, AAFC – Brandon Aaron Glenn, AAFC – Brandon Debbie McLaren, AAFC – Brandon Byron Irvine, AAFC – Brandon

Co-Investigators: Mark Sandercock, AAFC – Morden Gordon Finlay, AAFC – Brandon Craig Linde, CMCDC – Carberry Paula Halabicki, PESAI – Arborg Jeff Kostuik, PCDF – Roblin Scott Chalmers, WADO – Melita Support: Growing Forward 2

Progress: Year 3 of 3

Objective: Evaluate the effects of seeding rate and row spacing on soybean growth, yield and quality in Manitoba’s soybean-producing regions.

Key Message: Narrow rows produced yields that were equivalent to or greater than wide rows in all site-years. Increasing seeding rate consistently increased plant stand, but the actual plant stand established typically ranged from 60 to 100% of the target seeding rate, demonstrating the influence of conditions at seeding and crop emergence on final crop establishment. Yield increased with increasing plant stand, then leveled off with further increases in plant stand.

Contact Information: [email protected]

Introduction Manitoba’s soybean industry has grown rapidly over the past decade. With the development of short-season cultivars adapted to Manitoba conditions, soybean production has expanded from traditional areas in the Red River Valley to other regions of Manitoba, contributing to a record soybean acreage of an estimated 344,000 ha in 2012 (Statistics Canada 2012). With the growing importance of the soybean industry in Manitoba, and expansion into non-traditional areas, agronomic information appropriate for Manitoba’s climatic and soil conditions is required in order to identify those management practices that will optimize crop yield and quality. Row spacing With expansion of soybeans into non-traditional areas, soybeans have often been grown in narrow rows using conventional seeding equipment because row cropping equipment was uncommon. As soybean has become more established in Manitoba, however, questions have arisen regarding the relative benefits and disadvantages of narrow versus wide row spacing. Based on studies conducted in North Dakota, reported benefits of narrow row spacing of soybean include increased yield, increased weed competition due to earlier canopy closure, and capacity to use existing seeding and harvest equipment (Berglund and Helm 2003; Endres 2005; Endres and Kandel 2011). Conversely, wider rows may increase air movement among plants reducing disease potential and allow the use of row-crop cultivation for weed control. It has also been suggested that wider rows may be beneficial under drier conditions to reduce moisture losses via transpiration (Berglund and Helm 2003). In Manitoba, where soybean has been recognized as

17


a crop tolerant of wet conditions, row planting equipment may also allow earlier access to the field than an air seeder thereby reducing the risk of delayed seeding in wet years. Seeding rate Current Manitoba recommendations are to establish between 180,000 to 210,00 plants/acre or 4 plants ft2 (40 plants m-2) (Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, 2012). In studies in North Dakota comparing various seeding rates, higher plant density was shown to increase yield in some cases, although it was found that a lower planting rate might still be more economical when all costs and benefits are considered (Endres 2005; Endres and Kandel 2011). Interactions between row spacing and seeding rate may also occur. Maintaining the same seeding rate when changing from narrow to wide row spacing increases the number of plants per row. This may cause the plant to produce its lowest pods higher off the ground, potentially reducing the need to roll the field and allowing the lowest pods to be harvested more easily. Methods Field experiments were conducted at various locations across Manitoba from 2011 through 2013 inclusive, for a total of 20 site-years (Table 1). Studies were conducted at Carberry, Melita, Morden and Portage from 2011 through 2013, inclusive; and at Arborg, Beausejour, Brandon and Roblin from 2012 through 2013, inclusive. At all sites, a randomized complete block design consisting of three replicates of a factorial combination of four seeding rates (20, 30, 40 and 50 pure live seeds m-2) and two row spacings (narrow and wide) was established. Exact row spacing varied among sites as a function of the seeding equipment available, with “narrow” row spacing typically ranging from 8” to 12” and “wide” row spacing ranging from 16” to 30” (Table 1). Plot size was determined by the equipment available at each site, and ranged in area from 5 to 29 m2. Standard management practices appropriate for each region were employed. The same soybean cultivar (2475 heat units; RR1) from the same seed source was grown at each site. Soybean was typically seeded between mid-May and mid-June, and harvested in September or October, depending upon location. Detailed information regarding agronomic management is provided in Table 1. In-season measurements included: plant density, lodging score, days to maturity, height at maturity, yield, and crop development periodically throughout vegetative and reproductive stages. Yield and seed quality (test weight, seed weight, oil and protein concentration) were determined at harvest. At those sites where seed moisture at harvest was measured, reported yields were adjusted to 14% moisture. At the remainder of sites, yields are reported on an air-dry basis. Oil and protein concentration were determined on an Infratec™ Grain Analyzer (Foss North America, Eden Prairie, MN). For the purpose of this report, data were analyzed by site-year using Proc Mixed in SAS, with row spacing and plant density considered fixed effects and replicate considered a random effect. Contrast analysis was employed to identify linear and quadratic responses to seeding rate. Regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between plant stand and seed yield. Results and Discussion Plant density: Plant stand increased linearly with increasing seeding rate at all experimental sites except Portage in 2013 where a similar numeric trend was observed (Figure 1; Figure 2a). The actual plant stand achieved in the field typically ranged between 60 and 100% of the target seeding rate (Figure 2b). Since the same seed source was used at all experimental sites, conditions at seeding and crop emergence were likely important factors influencing plant stand at individual

18


sites. These results suggest that verification of actual plant stands in the field is important to ensure that the plant populations achieved in the field are as expected based on the seeding rates used. Wide row spacing reduced plant stand in 9 of 20 site-years: at Carberry and Melita in 2011; Arborg, Brandon and Morden in 2012; and at Beausejour, Carberry, Melita, and Portage in 2013 (Figure 1). A higher concentration of plants within the row of the wide-row configuration may have led to reduced emergence and/or attrition of some plants due to increased between-plant competition. Interactions between seeding rate and row spacing rarely occurred (Morden 2012; Beausejour 2013), indicating that increasing seeding rate increased plant stand regardless of the row spacing used. Yield: Yield varied considerably among site-years, and was influenced both by row spacing and seeding rate (Figure 3). Interactions between row spacing and seeding rate were seldom observed (Morden and Portage in 2011; Arborg in 2012) and inconsistent, suggesting that row spacing and seeding rate can be considered independently of each other. In all site-years, narrow row spacing produced yields that were equal to or greater than wide row spacing. In 8 of 20 site-years, narrow row spacing increased yield compared to wide row spacing (Arborg, Beausejour, Melita in 2012 and 2013; Carberry in 2012; Roblin in 2013). Yield increases at these sites ranged from approximately 100 to 780 kg ha-1, but were <550 kg ha-1 in most site-years. In 6 of the 8 cases where narrow row spacing increased yield, the “wide” row spacing treatments were ≥27” (Arborg - 27”; Beausejour – 27”; Melita – 30”). In the other two cases where row spacing affected yield, the wide row spacing treatments were 16” (Roblin 2013) and 24” (Carberry 2012), respectively, and the yield differences observed were comparatively smaller. Increasing seeding rate increased seed yield in 17 of 20 site-years (Figure 3). Similar numeric trends were evident in the remaining site-years, but effects were not statistically significant. At Roblin in 2012, variability at the site and a reduced number of replicates may have contributed to the lack of a significant effect while, at Portage in 2013, increasing seeding rate had not increased plant stand which may have limited effects on yield. Linear increases in yield with increasing seeding rate were observed in most site-years, indicating that there were incremental increases in yield across the range of seeding rates used. In a few site-years (Carberry, Morden in 2011; Beausejour in 2012; Roblin 2013), quadratic responses suggested that yields increased with increasing seeding rate then levelled off as seeding rate was further increased. With the exception of Morden, the 40 seed m-2 seeding rate often yielded about 95 to 100% of the 50 seed m-2 rate. Exceptions were Arborg, Carberry and Roblin in 2013, where the 40 seed m-2 seeding rate yielded approximately 90% of the 50 seed m-2 rate. Other exceptions were Carberry in 2011 and Portage in 2013 where the 40 seed m-2 seeding rate yielded approximately 114% and 108% of the 50 seed m-2 rate, respectively. Preliminary analysis suggested that differences in actual plant stand measured in the field accounted for approximately 69% of the variability in yield (Figure 4). This analysis was based on 13 site-years of data across Manitoba. Initial analysis to assess the effect of actual plant stand on relative seed yield (i.e. yield as percentage of the highest-yielding seeding rate treatment in each site-year) showed a quadratic relationship, with yield increasing with increasing plant stand then levelling off. Based on the quadratic equation that was fit to the data, plant stands of 20, 30, 35, 40 and 45 plants m-2 produced an estimated 84%, 95%, 98%, 100% and 100% of optimum yield, respectively. Current Manitoba recommendations indicate a plant population of 40 plants m-2.

19


Economic analysis of data from the current study has not been conducted. In studies in North Dakota comparing various seeding rates, higher plant density was shown to increase yield in some cases, although the researchers noted that a lower planting rate might still be more economical when all costs and benefits are considered (Endres 2005; Endres and Kandel 2011). Seed quality: Seed weight, test weight, percent oil and percent protein were determined on harvested seed in all site-years, except Carberry in 2011 due to significant frost damage at that site, for a total of 19 site-years of data. Often, effects of row spacing and seeding rate were relatively small when compared to variability among site-years. A lack of interactions between row spacing and seeding rate suggest that these factors acted independently of one another. Oil concentration: Row spacing and seeding rate had limited and inconsistent effects on percent oil in harvested seed. Row spacing affected percent oil in 3 of 19 site-years but effects were inconsistent, with narrow row spacing increasing percent oil at Melita in 2012 and Arborg in 2013, and decreasing percent oil at Arborg in 2012. Contrast analysis showed that increasing seeding rate decreased percent oil at Arborg, Carberry, Melita and Roblin in 2012, and increased percent oil at Portage in 2011 and Arborg and Carberry in 2013. A quadratic response was measured at Portage in 2013, with percent oil decreasing with increasing seeding rate then increasing slightly. While these effects were statistically significant, the differences in percent oil within a given site-year were generally small compared to the variability among site-years. Protein concentration: Row spacing had a more frequent and consistent effect on percent protein than on percent oil, with wide row spacing resulting in a higher percent protein in 7 of 19 site-years. Differences between narrow and wide row spacing typically ranged from 0.2 to 1.2% protein, with the exception of Arborg 2013 where the difference averaged 3.1%. In part, markedly lower yields in the wide row spacing treatment at Arborg in 2013 may have contributed to a higher percent protein at that site. Contrast analysis indicated that percent protein increased with increasing seeding rate in 7 of 19 site-years (Melita, Morden in 2011; Arborg, Brandon, Roblin in 2012; Beausejour, Portage in 2013) and decreased with increasing seeding rate at Arborg in 2013. As noted for percent oil, while statistically significant, the differences observed were generally small compared to the variability among site-years. Seed weight: Seed weight was higher for wide than narrow row spacing in 9 of 19 site-years, although this did not translate into increased seed yield in any case. Seeding rate influenced seed weight in 7 of 19 site-years, but effects were inconsistent among site-years. Increasing seeding rate increased seed weight in 3 site-years (Arborg, Portage in 2012; Beausejour in 2013), but decreased seed weight in the remaining 4 site-years (Roblin in 2012; Arborg, Carberry, Melita in 2013). Test weight: Test weight was higher for narrow than wide row spacing at Carberry and Roblin in 2012 and Arborg in 2013 , and lower for narrow than wide row spacing at Brandon in 2013. Contrast analysis showed small increases in test weight with increasing seeding weight in 6 of 19 site-years, and small decreases in two site-years. Summary Narrow rows produced yields that were equivalent to or greater than wide rows in all site-years. Narrow rows had a yield advantage in almost all cases (6 of 7 site-years) where narrow rows of 9-10” were compared against wide rows ranging from 27-30”. In those site-years where wide rows ranged from 16-24”, yield differences between narrow and wide rows were less frequent (2 of 13 site-years).

20


Increasing seeding rate consistently increased plant stand, but the actual plant stand established typically ranged from 60 to 100% of the target seeding rate, demonstrating the influence of conditions at seeding and crop emergence on final crop establishment. Yield increased with increasing plant stand, then leveled off with further increases in plant stand. Based on preliminary analysis of a sub-set of 13 site-years of data, plant stand accounted for approximately 69% of yield variability. Fitting of a quadratic relationship indicated that actual plant stands of 30, 35 and 40 plants m-2 produced an estimated 95, 98% and 100% of optimum yield under the conditions of this study. Current Manitoba recommendations indicate a plant population of 40 plants m-2. Both row spacing and seeding rate influenced seed quality in some site-years. However, observed effects were generally not consistent among all site-years, and differences among treatments were often comparatively smaller than the differences observed among site-years. Additional analysis of these data will be conducted to more closely assess the effects of row spacing and seeding rate on soybean in Manitoba. References Berglund, D.R. and Helms, T.C. 2003. Soybean production. A-250. North Dakota State University Extension Service, Fargo, ND. Endres, G. 2005. Soybean planting trial provides production advice. NDSU Agriculture Communication. http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extnews/newsrelease/2005/042805/10soybea.htm Endres, G. and Kandel, H. 2011. Soybean planting rate and row spacing. North Dakota State University Extension Service, Fargo, ND. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/cpr/plant-science/soybean-planting-rate-and-row-spacing Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. 2012. Soybean – Production and Management. http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/specialcrops Statistics Canada. 2012. Table 001-0010 – Estimated areas, yield, production and average farm price of principal field crops, in metric units, annual, CANSIM (database). [Accessed 2012-11-11]

21


Mor

den (

2011

-13)

Bran

don (

2012

-13)

Porta

ge (2

011-

13)

Mel

ita (2

011-

13)

Robl

in (2

012-

13)

Arbo

rg (2

012-

13)

Carb

erry

(201

1-13

)Be

ause

jour

(201

2-13

)

Site i

nfor

mat

ion

Lega

l loca

tion

SW 4-

3-5W

SW 21

-12-

18W

1Lo

t 1 Pl

an 20

49 PL

109

SE 36

-3-2

8W1

NE 20

-25-

28NW

16-2

2-2E

Sout

h 1/2

8-11

-14W

NE 12

-13-

7E

Soil t

extu

reFin

e Loa

m-C

layCl

ay Lo

amCl

ay Lo

amLo

amy S

and

Clay

Loam

Clay

Clay

Loam

Clay

loam

pH7.5

7.97.9

8.16.7

8.05.8

7.9

EC0.4

nana

8.7na

nana

4.7

Soil o

rgan

ic m

atte

r (%)

5.15.5

5.41.9

nana

6.0na

Expe

rimen

tal in

form

atio

n

Plot

size

5 m2

2012

- 22.8

m2

2013

- 12.5

m2

14.4

m2

27 - 2

9 m2

20 m

28.2

m2

14 m

28.2

m2

Seed

ing e

quip

men

tZe

ro Ti

ll plo

t see

der

ERDA

plot

cone

seed

erFa

bro p

lot s

eede

rSe

edha

wk co

ne se

eder

Fabr

o plo

t see

der

Plot

cone

seed

erCu

stom

plot

seed

erPl

ot co

ne se

eder

Open

ers

Disc

open

erDi

sc op

ener

sDi

sc op

ener

Dual

knife

open

erHo

e ope

ner

Pilla

r Las

er di

sc/h

oe op

ener

Narro

w ho

e ope

ner

Pilla

r Las

er di

sc/h

oe op

ener

Row

spac

ing (

narro

w/wi

de)

25cm

/50c

m25

cm/5

0cm

30cm

/60c

m25

cm/7

5cm

20cm

/40c

m23

cm/6

9cm

30cm

/60c

m23

cm/6

9cm

Prec

eedi

ng M

anag

emen

t

2011

sprin

g/fa

ll cul

tivat

ion

---de

ep ti

llage

, cul

tivat

ion

fallo

w---

---fa

ll cul

tivat

ion,

harro

w---

2012

sprin

g/fa

ll cul

tivat

ion

zero

-till,

barle

y sila

gede

ep ti

llage

, cul

tivat

ion

oat s

tubb

leco

nven

tiona

l till

age

fall w

ith sp

ring h

arro

wfa

ll cul

tivat

ion,

harro

woa

t stu

bble

, har

rowe

d and

rolle

d

2013

sprin

g/fa

ll cul

tivat

ion

(whe

at st

ubbl

e)ze

ro-ti

ll, ba

rley s

ilage

deep

tilla

ge, c

ultiv

atio

noa

t stu

bble

conv

entio

nal t

illag

e

(corn

stub

ble)

fall c

ultiv

atio

n, sp

ring h

arro

wfa

ll cul

tivat

ion,

harro

woa

t stu

bble

, har

rowe

d and

rolle

d

Seed

ing d

epth

4 cm

2-2.5

cmna

1.9cm

-2.5

cm2.5

cm1.5

cmna

1.25 c

m

Harv

est E

quip

men

tW

inte

rstei

ger

Win

terst

eige

r Del

taW

inte

rstei

ger

Hege

140

Win

terst

eige

r W

inte

rstei

ger

Win

terst

eige

rW

inte

rstei

ger

Date

s of f

ield o

pera

tions

Seed

ing D

ate 20

11M

ay 26

, 201

1---

June

13, 2

011

June

6, 20

11---

------

2012

May

18, 2

012

June

1, 20

12na

May

16, 2

012

May

30, 2

012

May

25, 2

012

June

13, 2

012

May

16, 2

012

2013

May

15, 2

013

May

22, 2

013

June

5, 20

13M

ay 15

, 201

3M

ay 30

, 201

3M

ay 23

, 201

3M

ay 22

, 201

3M

ay 24

, 201

3

Harv

est d

ate 20

11Se

ptem

ber 2

8, 20

11---

naOc

tobe

r 7, 2

011

------

Sept

embe

r 27,

2011

---

2012

naSe

ptem

ber 2

4, 20

12na

Sept

embe

r 24,

2012

Sept

embe

r 25,

2012

Sept

embe

r 26,

2012

Octo

ber 1

, 201

2Se

ptem

ber 2

7, 20

12

2013

Octo

ber 3

, 201

3Oc

tobe

r 9, 2

013

Octo

ber 2

5, 20

13Oc

tobe

r 15,

2013

Octo

ber 1

7, 20

13Oc

tobe

r 8, 2

012

Octo

ber 1

8, 20

13Oc

tobe

r 3, 2

013

na - n

ot av

ailab

le

Tabl

e 1. S

ite an

d man

agem

ent i

nfor

mat

ion f

or fi

eld e

xper

imen

ts co

nduc

ted a

t eigh

t loc

atio

ns in

Man

itoba

(201

1-20

13).

22


a. b.

b.

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pla

nt

de

nsit

y (

pla

nts

m-2

)

20

30

40

50

2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pla

nt

de

nsit

y (

pla

nts

m-2

)

narrow

wide

*

*

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pla

nt

de

nsit

y (

pla

nts

m-2

)

narrow

wide

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pla

nt

de

nsit

y (

pla

nts

m-2

)

narrow

wide

*

*

**

*

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pla

nt

de

nsit

y (

pla

nts

m-2

)

20

30

40

50

2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pla

nt

de

nsit

y (

pla

nts

m-2

)

20

30

40

50

2013

* *

2011

2012

2013

*

L*

L*

L*

L* L*

L*

L* L*

L*

L*

L* L*

L*

L*

L*

L* L*

Figure 1. Effect of row spacing (a) and seeding rate as pure live seeds per m2 (b) on plant density of soybean at various locations across Manitoba (2011-2013). Data were not collected at Beausejour in 2012 and Arborg in 2013. (*indicates a significant effect of treatment based on analysis of variance; L indicates a linear response based on contrast analysis.)

23


a.

b.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Pla

nt

cou

nt

(pla

nts

/ m

2 )

Seeding rate (pure live seeds/m2)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Pla

nt

cou

nt

(as

% o

f se

ed

ing

rate

)

Seeding rate (pure live seeds/m2)

Figure 2. Effect of seeding rate on actual plant counts (a) and plant counts as a percent of the seeding rate (b) for soybean for 18 site-years in Manitoba (2011-2013).

24


a. b.

b.

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2013

2013

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Se

ed

yie

ld (

kg

ha

-1)

20

30

40

50

2011

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Se

ed

yie

ld (

kg

ha

-1)

narrow

wide

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Se

ed

yie

ld (

kg

ha

-1)

narrow

wide

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Se

ed

yie

ld (

kg

ha

-1)

narrow

wide

*

*

*

*

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Se

ed

yie

ld (

kg

ha

-1)

20

30

40

50

2012

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Se

ed

yie

ld (

kg

ha

-1)

20

30

40

50

2013

*

*

*

2011

2012

2013

*

Q*

L*

L*

LQ*

LQ*

*

L* L*

L*

L

L*

L L*

L*

L

L

LQ*

L*

Figure 3. Effect of row spacing (a) and seeding rate as pure live seeds per m2 (b) on yield of soybean at various locations across Manitoba (2011-2013). (*indicates a significant effect of treatment based on analysis of variance; L indicates a linear response, and Q indicates a quadratic response, based on contrast analysis.)

25


Figure 4. Relationship between actual plant stand and relative yield of soybean (yield as percent of the highest-yielding treatment within each site-year) based on 13 site-years of data from various sites in Manitoba (2011-13). For this analysis, the following site-years were not included: Beausejour 2012 and Arborg 2013 (plant count data not available), Carberry 2011 (frost damage), Portage 2013 (seeding rate did not have a significant effect on plant stand), and Portage 2011, Carberry 2012 and Roblin 2013 (actual plant stand was ≤50% of goal stand in some or all treatments).

26


a. b.

b.

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2011

2011

2011

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

0

5

10

15

20

25

Oil

co

nte

nt

(%)

narrow

wide

0

5

10

15

20

25

Oil

co

nte

nt

(%)

narrow

wide

0

5

10

15

20

25

Oil

co

nte

nt

(%)

narrow

wide

*

0

5

10

15

20

25

Oil

co

nte

nt

(%)

20

30

40

50

2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

Oil

co

nte

nt

(%)

20

30

40

50

2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

Oil

co

nte

nt

(%)

20

30

40

50

2013

L L Q*

*

2011

2012

2013

L** L*

L*

L

L

Figure 5. Effect of row spacing (a) and seeding rate as pure live seeds per m2 (b) on percent oil in harvested seed of soybean at various locations across Manitoba (2011-2013). (*indicates a significant effect of treatment based on analysis of variance; L indicates a linear response, and Q indicates a quadratic response, based on contrast analysis.)

27


a. b.

b.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(%)

narrow

wide

* *

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(%)

narrow

wide

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(%)

narrow

wide

** *

* *

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(%)

20

30

40

50

2011

L*L

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(%)

20

30

40

50

2012

L L

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pro

tein

co

nte

nt

(%)

20

30

40

50

2013L*L Q

*

2011

2012

2013

*

L*

Figure 6. Effect of row spacing (a) and seeding rate as pure live seeds per m2 (b) on percent protein in harvested seed of soybean at various locations across Manitoba (2011-2013). (*indicates a significant effect of treatment based on analysis of variance; L indicates a linear response, and Q indicates a quadratic response, based on contrast analysis.)

28


a. b.

b.

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2011

2011

2011

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Se

ed

we

igh

t (g

/1

00

0 s

ee

ds)

narrow

wide

* * *

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Se

ed

we

igh

t (g

/1

00

0 s

ee

ds)

narrow

wide

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Se

ed

we

igh

t (g

/1

00

0 s

ee

ds)

narrow

wide

** *

** *

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Se

ed

we

igh

t (g

/1

00

0 s

ee

ds)

20

30

40

50

2011

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Se

ed

we

igh

t (g

/1

00

0 s

ee

ds)

20

30

40

50

2012

L*

L*

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Se

ed

we

igh

t (g

/1

00

0 s

ee

ds)

20

30

40

50

2013L*

L* LL

*

2011

2012

2013

L**

Figure 7. Effect of row spacing (a) and seeding rate as pure live seeds per m2 (b) on seed weight of harvested seed of soybean at various locations across Manitoba (2011-2013). (*indicates a significant effect of treatment based on analysis of variance; L indicates a linear response based on contrast analysis.)

29


a. b.

b.

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2011

2011

2011

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Te

st w

eig

ht (

kg

hL

-1)

narrow

wide

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Te

st w

eig

ht (

kg

hL

-1)

narrow

wide

* *

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Te

st w

eig

ht (

kg

hL

-1)

narrow

wide

* * *

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Te

st w

eig

ht (

kg

hL

-1)

20

30

40

50

2011L L

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Te

st w

eig

ht (

kg

hL

-1)

20

30

40

50

2012L* LQ

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Te

st w

eig

ht (

kg

hL

-1)

20

30

40

50

2013L*

*

2011

2012

2013

L** L*

Figure 8. Effect of row spacing (a) and seeding rate as pure live seeds per m2 (b) on test weight of harvested seed of soybean at various locations across Manitoba (2011-2013). (*indicates a significant effect of treatment based on analysis of variance; L indicates a linear response, and Q indicates a quadratic response, based on contrast analysis.)

30


4R P management for soybeans in the Northern Frontier: rate and placement effects on plant stand, biomass and seed yield

Principal Investigators: Gustavo Bardella, University of São Paulo – Brazil

John Heard, MAFRD – Carman Dennis Lange, MAFRD – Altona Yvonne Lawley, U of M – Winnipeg Cynthia Grant, AAFC – Brandon Don Flaten, U of M – Winnipeg University of São Paulo MAFRD

University of Manitoba

AAFC Co-Investigators: Craig Linde, CMCDC – Carberry Curtis Cavers, CMCDC – Carberry Jeff Kostuik, PCDF – Roblin Paula Halabicki, PESAI – Arborg Scott Chalmers, WADO – Melita Brian Hellegards, Richardson International – Ste Adolphe James Richardson International Agrium AgVise Laboratories Monsanto Support: Growing Forward 2 Progress: Year 1 of 2 Objective: Assess soybean response to P fertilizer in northern environments. Contact Information: [email protected] 2013 Project Report Soybeans areas are expanding northerly across the Great Plains region of North America. Over the last 15 years in Manitoba, Canada, soybean acreage has increased from 18,000 acres in 1998 to over 1 million acres in 2013. This increase in soybean acreage is due to a variety of factors, including the development of new varieties that are adapted to Manitoba's relatively short (95-135 frost-free days) and cool (2100-2500 corn heat units) growing season. Although Manitoba’s soybean producers are proficient at inoculating their soybeans for maximum biological fixation of N, they have many questions about P fertilization and placement under Manitoba conditions. Most Prairie Canadian crops such as wheat, barley and canola respond more to banded (seed placed and side banded) P fertilizer than to broadcast applications. However, seed placed P is known to cause stand injury with some crops, including soybeans, at high rates of application. Very little research has been conducted on P fertilization of soybeans in the Canadian Prairies and the results of that limited amount of research are inconsistent. As a result, little is known about the right source, right rate, right placement and right timing (4Rs) for P fertilization of modern soybean cultivars in this environment.

31


Overall growing conditions in Manitoba were better than the average for most crops, so soybean yields at most sites were greater than the 10-year provincial average yield of 28 bu/ac (Table 2a, 2b). Seedrow placement of typical agronomic rates of fertilizer P (20 or 40 lb P2O5 per acre) did not decrease soybean plant stands, biomass or seed yields at any site (Tables 1-3, Figures 1-8). However, an extremely high rate of seed row P (80 lb P2O5 per acre) decreased plant stand and seed yield at Melita and Carberry, which are located on coarse and medium-textured soils, respectively. None of the fertilizer P rates or placements increased soybean seed or biomass yield, even at the three sites with less than 10 ppm Olsen extractable P.

Table 1a. Stand Counts (thousand plants/acre)

Treatment Brandon Melita Carberry Beausejour Arborg

Control 179 A 250 A 97 A 165 A 186 A

20 SP 172 A 160 A 110 A 170 A 174 A

20 SB 199 A 172 AB 109 A 186 A 180 A

20 BR 169 A 214 AB 112 A 190 A 201 A

40 SP 187 A 163 A 90 AB 180 A 171 A

40 SB 167 A 155 AB 93 AB 168 A 168 A

40 BR 189 A 183 AB 100 A 141 A 162 A

80 SP 189 A 73 B 60 B 178 A 142 A

80 SB 192 A 177 AB 96 A 167 A 201 A

80 BR 177 A 245 A 95 A 197 A 192 A

For each site, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p= 0.05). SP = seed placed P fertilizer; SB = side-banded P fertilizer; BR = broadcast P fertilizer.

Table 2a. Seed Yield (bu/acre)


Control 35 A 59 A 52 A 57 A 35 AB

20 SP 32 A 56 A 54 A 60 A 40 AB

20 SB 33 A 48 AB 51 A 56 A 36 AB

20 BR 35 A 53 AB 47 AB 60 A 40 AB

40 SP 33 A 55 A 47 A 62 A 37 AB

40 SB 32 A 51 AB 49 A 59 A 36 AB

40 BR 34 A 56 A 53 A 62 A 39 AB

Table 1b. Stand Counts (thousand plants/acre)

Treatment Roblin Portage St Adolphe

Control 263 A 111 A 84 A

20 SP 253 A 107 A 74 A

20 BR 233 A 123 A 67 A

40 SP 202 A 87 A 84 A

40 BR 263 A 122 A 91 A


32


80 SP 27 A 38 B 37 B 64 A 36 B

80 SB 27 A 55 A 47 A 59 A 39 AB

80 BR 35 A 57 A 47 A 61 A 44 A

For each site, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p= 0.05).

SP = seed placed P fertilizer; SB = side-banded P fertilizer; BR = broadcast P fertilizer.

Table 2b. Seed Yield (bu/acre)

Treatment Roblin Portage St Adolphe

Control 23 A 47 A 66 A

20 SP 24 A 43 A 69 A

20 BR 25 A 47 A 63 A

40 SP 23 A 45 A 72 A

40 BR 24 A 45 A 67 A


Table 3a. Midseason (R3 stage) Biomass Dry Matter (lb/acre)


Control 4955 A 6285 AB 5562 A 5002 A 4412 A

20 SP 5721 A 5104 A 5278 A 4308 AB 4983 A

20 SB 4752 A 4596 AB 6190 A 4220 AB 4280 A

20 BR 4062 A 5564 AB 6236 A 4183 AB 4809 A

40 SP 4783 A 5047 AB 4531 A 4878 A 4753 A

40 SB 4285 A 2968 AB 5813 A 4535 A 4739 A

40 BR 4757 A 4995 AB 5990 A 3049 B 4026 A

80 SP 4942 A 2549 B 5387 A 4059 AB 3588 A

80 SB 5041 A 4091 AB 6599 A 4420 AB 4660 A

80 BR 5533 A 6164 AB 6134 A 4787 A 3823 A


Table 3b. Midseason (R3 stage) Biomass Dry Matter (lb/acre)

Treatment Roblin

Control 6371 A

20 SP 5471 A

20 BR 6968 A

40 SP 6350 A

40 BR 6001 A

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p= 0.05). SP = seed placed P fertilizer; SB = side-banded P fertilizer; BR = broadcast P fertilizer.

33


Figure 1. Melita, Loamy Sandy – 3 ppm Olsen P

Figure 2. Brandon, Clay loam – 5 ppm Olsen P

Figure 3. Roblin, Clay Loam - 7 ppm Olsen P

34


Figure 4. Beausejour, Clay – 8 ppm Olsen P

Figure 5. Arborg, Clay – 14 ppm Olsen P

Figure 6. St Adolphe, Clay – 23 ppm Olsen P

35


Figure 7. Portage, Clay Loam – 34 ppm Olsen P

Figure 8. Carberry, Clay Loam - 44 ppm Olsen P

The lack of seed yield response to P and the high tolerance of soybeans to seedrow placed P was surprising. However, although these results are from a diverse range of field sites, they were collected over only one growing season. Therefore, as the study continues, we look forward to learning more about P fertilization for sustainable soybean production systems in Manitoba.

36


Western Canada soybean adaptation under irrigation & dry land production

Principal Investigators: MPGA MCVET

Co-Investigators: Craig Linde, CMCDC – Carberry Support: Growing Forward 2 MPGA MCVET

Progress: Ongoing

Objective: Evaluate soybean variety performance & adaptation to the Carberry and Portage la Prairie regions of the Central plains under irrigated and dry land cropping systems.


2013 Project Report

The Western Canada Soybean evaluation trial is an on-going effort to examine the adaptability of new soybean varieties to the prairie provinces. In Manitoba, irrigated and dry land trials are conducted at two CMCDC locations: Carberry and Portage la Prairie. Field operations for 2013 are listed in Table 1. Sites were irrigated based on tensiometer readings, which were installed at 45cm and 60cm depths. All plots were sprayed with 0.5L of glyphosate between the first and second trifoliate stage of development to control weeds. Table 1. CMCDC field operations for 2013 soybean irrigated and dry land trials. Date/Rate Operation Carberry Portage la Prairie

Seeding Date May 16, 2013 June 11, 2013 Harvest Date October 18, 2013 October 28, 2013 Fertility 38lbs Mid Row Banded actual

Phos/acre (0-45-0) 60lbs Broadcast/incorperated

actual P/ac (11-52-0) Irrigation (irrigated trials only) 03-Jul 1.0cm 08-Jul 1.0cm 10-Jul 1.0cm 12-Jul 1.0cm 02-Aug 1.0cm 13-Aug 1.0cm 16-Aug 1.3cm 20-Aug 1.5cm 21-Aug 1.3cm 23-Aug 1.5cm

2013 was a good year for soybeans at both CMCDC locations. This is in contrast to 2012, where yields were restricted in Portage la Prairie due to the hot, dry summer, and a light frost in Carberry on Sept 14 halted further development; effecting mainly the varieties with the longest maturity requirement in the irrigated trial.

37


Irrigation once again delayed the onset of maturity at both locations; however, this was less pronounced in 2013 than in previous years, mainly due to the generally good growing conditions. And, in contrast to the stressful conditions of 2012, in 2013 the delay in maturity generally had a negative impact on grain yield (Figures 1 & 2). Differences among treatments for both dry land and irrigated trials at each location were significant; however, there were no significant interactions between irrigation and variety at either location in 2013, which suggests there were no particular varieties that responded differently to the application of irrigation.

Figure 1. Soybean grain yield (kg/ha) in dry land and irrigated production systems at Carberry, Manitoba 2013 (LSD=547 kg/ha).

38


Effect of fungicide application timing on grain yield and quality of winter wheat varieties with different levels of resistance to fusarium head blight

Principal Investigators: Ducks Unlimited Canada Bayer Crop Sciences Co-Investigators: Craig Linde, CMCDC – Carberry Scott Chalmers, WADO – Melita Keith Watson, PCDF – Roblin Paula Halabicki, PESAI – Arborg Support: Growing Forward Ducks Unlimited Canada Bayer Crop Sciences Progress: Year 2 of 3 Objective: To gain understanding into the necessity of fungicides to control FHB

when varieties with resistance genes to FHB are grown. Contact Information: [email protected] [email protected] 2013 Project Report A winter wheat variety (Emerson) with resistance to Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) was registered in Canada in 2012. Previously, winter wheat varieties were in general more susceptible to FHB as compared to spring wheat. This is the first FHB resistant winter wheat variety for the prairies. There are several fungicides on the market registered for use in winter wheat that protect against FHB and several other common leaf diseases. Since having resistance does not mean a variety is immune, it is not known how disease resistance compares to the use of fungicides for controlling FHB and whether the use of fungicides with such varieties is necessary or still advisable. The experiment was designed as a split plot design with fungicide application as the main plot and variety as the sub plot: the 4 varieties (table 1) were randomized together into blocks that then were subjected to one of four different fungicide regimes: Non-sprayed control, Folicur at flag leaf stage, Prosaro at flowering stage, Folicur at flag leaf stage & Prosaro at flowering stage. Other general agronomic practices for the trial are listed in table 2.

mailto:[email protected]

39


Table 1. Variety description of winter wheat varieties used for DU evaluation of variety and fungicide on winter wheat production (seedinteractive.ca).

Variety CDC Buteo CDC Falcon Emerson Flourish

Year Registered 2002 1998 2012 2011 Pred1 Yield (% of check)(LSD: 5.1 % ) 100 98.9 100.2 103.6

Pred1 Protein ( LSD: 0.28 % ) 11.26 11.32 12.58 11.5

Fusarium head blight MR S R S

Leaf rust I MR I I

Stem rust I MR R I

Bunt S S n/a MR

Height in inches 30 26 30 28

Lodging resistance rating G VG VG VG

Relative Winter Hardiness rating VG F F F

1 – Pred (Predicted) yield and protein values are long term Best Linear Unbiased Prediction estimates of performance generated by Mixed Model Analysis.

Table 2. Agronomic practices for DU winter wheat variety by fungicide trial at Carberry, 2013.

Agronomic Practice Date/Rate

Seeding (stubble) September 14, 2012 (18” canola stubble) Fall Soil Test N: 35lbs/ac P: 32 lbs/ac K: 306ppm S: 52 lbs/ac Fall Fertility None

Spring Fertility N: 115lbs actual broadcast May 15, 2013 Weed Control Infinity at 0.33L/ac on June 6, 2013. Midge Control None Harvest Date August 21, 2013

The late spring of 2013 was very difficult on winter wheat at CMCDC Carberry. Despite excellent establishment in the previous fall plant stands were greatly reduced in the spring due to seedling mortality caused by soil borne disease. Figures 1 and 2 are images of the reduction in stand experienced randomly throughout the trial. Plant counts revealed a range of densities from 17-155 plants/m2 with an overall average of 67 plants/m2, far below the recommended 180-250 plants/m2 for winter wheat.

Figure 1. Winter Wheat Plot in Carberry, May 26 2013.

40


Figure 2. Winter wheat seedling mortality Carberry, May 26, 2013. As a result of the stand variance among plots yield data will not be presented. Due to the large differences in plant population there were noticeable staging differences within plots, complicating exact timing of fungicide applications. Since it was impractical to spray partial plots at different times, the trial was sprayed when it was determined that the majority of plots had reached the appropriate stage. Plots were harvested and grain samples analyzed for test weight, fusarium damage and vomitoxin levels. These results are presented in table 3. The application of fungicides did not have a significant effect on either fusarium damage or vomitoxin levels, nor was there a significant interaction between variety and fungicide application in either case. Variety was significant in both instances with Emerson having the lowest fusarium damage and vomitoxin levels while Flourish had the greatest levels. This is not a surprise since Emerson has an “R” rating while Flourish is rated “S” for fusarium. Flourish had the lowest test weight and one that would have impacted its grade. Table 3. Test weight (g/0.5L), Fusarium damage and Vomitoxin (ppm) levels of winter wheat varieties in Carberry, 2013. Variety Test weight (g/0.5L) Fusarium Damage (%) Vomitoxin (ppm)

CDC Falcon 390.6bc 0.81ab 0.8a CDC Buteo 392.9c 1.05b 1.1b Flourish 380.2a 2.11c 2.7c Emerson 387.5b 0.57a 0.6a

CV% 1.1 38 36 Prob Entry <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 LSD 3.44 0.36 0.40 The application of fungicide was significant for test weight (figure 3) with the application of Prosaro at flowering resulting in the lowest test weight; low enough to have grade implications since the minimum level for No1 CWRW is 386 g/0.5L. This is in contrast to many other studies and given the variable growth/maturity due to stand issues further work would need to be done to confirm any effect.

41


Figure 3: Effect of Fungicide application on test weight of winter wheat varieties in Carberry, 2013. Overall, genetics had a significant effect on the level of fusarium damage and vomitoxin at Carberry in 2013. No conclusions could be made from this study in regard to the necessity of spraying winter wheat that has a resistant rating for Fusarium Head Blight; however, it would appear from these results that investment in genetics would provide a higher probability of protection from yield/grade reduction due to fusarium than relying on fungicides alone.

42


Forage mixture establishment with/without a barley as a nurse crop

Principal Investigators: Glenn Friesen, MAFRD – Carman

Co-Investigators: Craig Linde, CMCDC – Carberry Scott Chalmers, WADO –Melita Keith Watson, PCDF – Roblin Paula Halabicki, PESAI – Arborg Support: Growing Forward 2


Objective: Demonstrate the effect of using a nurse crop to establish various forage mixtures in Manitoba.


2013 Project Report There are a number of factors to consider when selecting the appropriate forage mixture including soil type and environment as well as intended use. Often growers will opt to use a nurse crop while establishing forages to ensure there is some economic return in the establishment year; however, depending on the nurse crop and forage mixture used this may or may not be the best decision. This study is intended to both investigate and demonstrate the effect of using a nurse crop to establish different forage mixtures in Manitoba. Seven forage mixtures (table 1) were planted with and without a nurse crop at the Diversification Centres in 2012. Forage barley was used as the nurse crop and separated into two treatments: full and half seeding rate, seeded perpendicular to forage mixtures. Treatments were replicated 3 times in a split block design. Planting at the Carberry location occurred on May 25th, 2012. Due to a considerable amount of weeds no forage yield data was recorded at the Carberry location in 2012. Instead a single cut was taken for the entire trial July 20th when barley was in milk/soft dough stage of development. Height notes were taken for alfalfa in the fall of 2012 with alfalfa being significantly shorter in plots with barley planted as a nurse crop at a seeding rate of 1.75bu/ac. There was no significant difference in alfalfa height between 'no nurse crop' and barley planted as a nurse crop at 0.75bu/ac. Table 1. Forage mixtures for establishment trial.

Entry Use Mixture

1 Hay Alfalfa (Tap)

2 Hay Alfalfa (Creeping)

3 Check Kentucky Bluegrass

4 Hay Alfalfa, Hybrid Brome, Timothy

5 Saline Alfalfa (creeping & tap), Slender Wheatgrass, Tall Wheatgrass, Sweet Clover, Tall Fescue

6 Pasture Alfalfa (yellowhead), Meadow Brome, Orchard Grass, Tall Fescue, Cicer Milkvetch

7 Native Big Bluestem, Wheat Grass, Slender Wheatgrass, Green Needlegrass

43


In 2013, plots were sampled for species present and relative biomass on July 4th (Rep 1) and July 5th (Rep 2 & 3). Forage yields were taken once for all plots by harvesting the entire plot, weighing and adjusting for moisture. Forage yield was harvested on July 19th. The relative biomass calculated by species from earlier plot sampling was then applied to total forage yield, and for analysis purposes grouped by legumes, grass and weed species. Overall alfalfa creeping achieved the greatest dry matter yield with Kentucky Bluegrass producing the least amount of dry matter (figure 1).

Figure 1. Overall dry matter yield of forage mixtures in 2013, at Carberry. LSD= 1639 kg/ha. The use of a nurse crop (or lack thereof) was not significant (p=0.06), although plots with a nurse crop had greater dry matter yields than those without a nurse crop (figure 2). There was no significant interaction between the use of a nurse crop and forage mixture, mainly due to high variability for some mixtures but Kentucky Bluegrass seemed most affected. One possible explanation was the affect of weed competition. Despite there being no significant differences among treatments with regard to grass establishment (mean 18 pl/m2), Kentucky Bluegrass was very slow to establish, not very vigorous and as a result had much greater weed pressure which is shown in figure 3 in terms of biomass partitioning and also by plant counts in figure 4. Counts in the native grass mixtures also showed a larger number of weeds but these weeds were mostly smaller in comparison to the Kentucky bluegrass treatments, as shown by the differences in biomass. In the case of Kentucky Bluegrass and other, less competitive crops it would seem a nurse crop can be valuable for reducing weed populations (and possibly the need to control weeds) not only during the establishment year, but consequently in the second year of forage production as well.

44


Figure 2. Second year dry matter yield of forage mixtures established with and without a nurse crop at Carberry, 2013.

Figure 3. Average relative biomass of forage mixtures with and without a nurse crop at Carberry, 2013.

45


Figure 4. Established plant densities and weed populations in various forage mixtures established with and without a nurse crop in Carberry, 2013.

46


Effect of row spacing on buckwheat grain yield Principal Investigators: MBGA Co-Investigators: CMCDC Support: Growing Forward 2 Progress: Year 3 of 3 Objective: To evaluate the effect of row spacing and seeding rate on buckwheat

grain yield. Key Message: Increasing row spacing from 30cm to 60cm and reducing seeding

rate to 0.67bu per acre did not reduce grain yield. A further reduction in seeding rate may increase the risk of yield loss especially in regions where growing season is shorter or when plant stand is less than 40plants/m2.

Contact Information: [email protected] [email protected] Introduction Manitoba produces over 70% of Canada's buckwheat crop and is known as the "Buckwheat Capital of Canada". Buckwheat is generally grown for grain. About two-thirds of the Manitoban production is exported and Japan is the main importer, where the flavour and aroma of Manitoba buckwheat meets the requirements of Japanese noodle makers. Other nations who import Manitoba buckwheat include the Netherlands, United States and Austria. Buckwheat is sown late because of high susceptibility of frost. Buckwheat is a broadleaf, annual crop that reaches 2–5 ft (60–150 cm) in height. Stems are hollow and crop grown under high nitrogen conditions is more prone to lodging. There are currently no herbicide options for buckwheat. The only herbicide registered for use in buckwheat is sethoxydim; however, an 85 day pre-harvest window often makes the use of the product unpractical. Recommended planting rate and spacing for Buckwheat from studies outside Canada is 6-7” spacing and 0.7-1bu/ac seeding rate to allow for quick establishment and canopy closure, providing sufficient competition against weeds (1). Previous work with buckwheat in Manitoba is limited; the only published work done in the late 1960s indicated no significant yield reduction when using row spacing of 15-45cm with seeding rates of 0.4-1bu/ac (2). Buckwheat was able to compensate for extra space though increased branching, suggesting that seeding rates could be lowered to 0.68bu/ac from the recommended 1bu/ac when seed was limited. More recently, work in 2010 the Red River Valley (unpublished) examined buckwheat yield response to solid seeding verses 76cm row spacing at 1bu/ac and 0.67bu/ac seeding rates. Again no significant differences were found between treatments for grain yield. In this study row-spacing was examined as a means to permit inter-row cultivation as a potential weed control tool. Results from this study suggested that seeding rates for wide rows could also be lowered without yield penalty.


47


CMCDC continued the examination of row spacing as a viable option for weed control in 2011-2013. By using wider rows producers would have the option of inter-row tillage if conditions are such that rotation, field selection and pre-plant burn-off were not sufficient weed control practices. Solid seeding and wide row spacing at different seeding rates were assessed for their effect on buckwheat grain yield. In 2012, which was a relatively more stressful year, a reduction in seeding rate below 0.67bu/ac showed a decrease in yield (p<0.1). Barley was used as a weed to amplify stress, however no differences were detected. In 2013 the experiment was repeated for a final season. Rather than using barley as a weed, natural weed populations were allowed to grow untouched and compared to weed free plots. Differences in buckwheat yield were only detected at the Carberry location. Methods Trials were conducted at Winkler and Carberry in 2011, and Portage la Prairie and Carberry in 2012 and 2013. The buckwheat variety Horizon was used for all years. Solid seeded at 1bu/ac (30cm spacing), wide (60cm) row spacing planted at 1 and 0.67bu/ac were treatments in all years. In 2011 all treatments were kept weed free. In 2012 a third seeding rate, 0.33bu/ac was added and "weedy" and "weed-free” treatments were introduced; using volunteer barley planted at 10 plants/m of row. In 2013 weed free plots were hand weeded and weedy plots were left to natural weed populations. Seeding and swathing dates are in Table 1. Plots were seeded to 2.4m wide by 7m in length and trimmed back to 6m once emerged. Table 1. Planting and harvest dates for row spacing x seeding rate buckwheat trial 2011-2013.

Year Location Planting Date Swathing Date Replicates

2011 Carberry June 8 September 13* 6 2011 Winkler June 9 September 28** 3 2012 Carberry June 13 September 14 3 2012 Portage la Prairie June 7 Cancelled*** 3 2013 Carberry June 7 September 14 3 2013 Portage la Prairie June 7 September 25 3

*plots strait combined following killing frost. **plots strait combined at physiological maturity. ***trial destroyed by geese Weed control consisted of a general pre-seed burn-off with 1L/ac of glyphosate and then hand weeding post emergence for weed free plots. In 2012 Weedy plots were hand weeded for all weeds other than volunteer barley. In 2013 weed free plots in Carberry had weeds removed by inter-row cultivation and hand weeding with only hand weeding in Portage. Fertility varied by site, with amounts listed in table 2 applied according to soil test results with the exception of Carberry in 2011 where due to space limitations the site had to be moved onto an area that had already been fertilized (hence the larger than recommended fertility). In Portage fertilizer was broadcast and incorporated prior to planting. In Carberry nitrogen fertilizer was broadcast.

48


Table 2. Fertilizer applied (broadcast/incorporated) for buckwheat row spacing trial, 2011-2013. Year Location Actual

Nitrogen (46-0-0)

Actual Phosphorus

(11-52-0)

Actual Potassium (0-0-60)

Actual Sulfur

(21-0-0-24)

2011 Carberry 100 0 0 0 2011 Winkler 45 20 0 0 2012 Carberry 43 30 0 0 2012 Portage la Prairie 14 34 0 0 2013 Carberry 44 0 0 0 2013 Portage la Prairie 0 14 34 0

Data for individual sites were analyzed using General Linear Model in Agrobase Generation II. Combined site analyses were conducted using REML Mixed Model analysis in GenStat with year and location both set as random effects. Results and Discussion Individual Site Grain Yield Analysis Individual analysis summaries for grain yield are in table 3. Grain yield was only significant at p=0.1 & p=0.05 level at Carberry in 2012 and 2013, respectively. In 2012 only seeding rate/row spacing was significant at Carberry; however in 2013 seeding rate/row spacing, the presence of weeds and their interaction was significant at Carberry. In 2011 and 2012 the buckwheat at Carberry was affected by frost on September 14th and September 22nd, respectively. Neither Winkler nor Portage had significant differences among treatments. Portage in 2012 was destroyed by geese and no harvest data was collected as a result. Table 3. Statistical parameter summary for row-spacing x seeding rate trial in Manitoba 2011-2013. Year Location CV

(%) Grand Mean (kg/ha)

Weeds Significant (p=0.05)

Treatment Significant

2011 Carberry 16.6 434 na 0.28 2011 Winkler 21.3 756 na 0.26 2012 Carberry 15.8 1118 0.76 0.11 2012 Portage la

Prairie CANCELLED

2013 Carberry 15.8 1264 0.022 0.01 2013 Portage la

Prairie 15.8 1493 0.71 0.31

At Carberry in 2013 the narrow row spacing with 1bu/ac seeding rate had the greatest average yield; however, it was not significantly different than the wide row spacing at 1 and 0.67 bushels per acre. Overall weedy plots yielded significantly lower that weed-free; however, upon examining the interaction further only the difference between weedy and weed-free for the 0.67by/acre rate at 60cm spacing was significant although the lowest seeding rate did have the lowest yield (figure 1). Combining 2012 and 2013 Carberry locations resulted in no significant differences among weedy and weed-free treatments, or planting rate/row spacing treatments.

49


Figure 1. The effect of weed competition, row spacing and seeding rate on buckwheat grain yield at Carberry, 2013. LSD=350kg/ha. One possible reason for this discrepancy in 2013 was the significantly lower plant establishment at Carberry relative to Portage. Figure 2 shows the relationship of grain yield at Carbery and Portage, displayed as percent of maximum yield for each respective location, and established plants per meter square. With no significant differences among treatments at Portage and only the lowest seeding rate significantly different from the other treatments in Carberry the appearance of a relationship similar to other plastic crops such as canola. Further research would need to be conducted to confirm this relationship.

Figure 2: Buckwheat grain yield at Carbery and Portage displayed as percent of maximum yield for each respective location, verses the density of established plants per meter square in 2013.

50


Combined 1bu/ac @ 30cm, 60cm and 60cm at 0.67bu/ac weed-free (2011-2013) When combined weed-free data across all years, doubling row spacing had no effect on grain yield or test weight. As expected, a doubling of row spacing resulted in a doubling of plants per meter of row with the reduced seeding rate having a similar number of plants per meter of row as the recommended seeding rate at 12” spacing (table 4). Expanding to a plants/m2 perspective, Buckwheat was able to compensate for the additional space at the higher row spacing and lower seeding rate despite a slight deficit in plant population. Table 4. Overall effect of row spacing and plant population on established buckwheat in Manitoba, 2011-2013.

Treatment Plants/m of row (SED=8) Plants/m2 (SED=14)

12" rows - 1bu/ac 32 101 24" rows - 0.67bu/ac 42 69

24" rows - 1bu/ac 62 103

Effect of further reduction to 0.33bu/ac weed free (2012-2013). Despite the above results at Carberry in 2013, when combined overall a further reduction of seeding rate under weed free conditions resulted in no significant difference in grain yield (table 5). Table 5. Grain yield of buckwheat planted at 30 & 60cm row spacing and various seeding rates 2012-2013 in Manitoba. Treatment is not significant.

Row Spacing – Seeding Rate Grain Yield (kg/ha)

30cm rows - 1bu/ac 1468 60cm rows - 1bu/ac 1271

60cm rows - 0.33bu/ac 1172 60cm rows - 0.67bu/ac 1341

Effect of weed competition (2012-2013) There was no significant effect of weed pressure despite weed counts as high as 30 plants/m2, on either grain yield or test weight. Nor was there a significant interaction between the presence of weeds and treatment. The presence of weeds did impact plant establishment slightly, on average reducing stand by 4 plants per meter of row; however, this was not enough to reduce grain yield. No difference in weed density was detecting between treatments. Weed seed yield and thus return to seed bank was not measured so it is impossible to determine from the data if lower planting rates suppressed weed growth similar to higher densities or if plants simply tolerated the weeds and were unaffected by weed presence. Nor is it possible to comment on the fitness of the weed seeds returned to the seed bank. Despite the lower planting rates being visually more “dirty” during the growing season, as the canopy closed later in the season this became less evident. Regardless of the weeds present (Green Foxtail, Red Root Pigweed, Hemp Nettle, Lambsquarter’s, Roundleaf Mallow) the buckwheat eventually overtook the environment. Buckwheat has always been promoted as a smother crop for weed suppression in organic systems (3) so these results are not surprising in principal, but what was surprising was the fact that during the 2012 & 2013 growing seasons the crop remained unaffected by weeds even at low plant densities. Figures 2-6 depict weedy and weed-free plots at Portage la Prairie in 2013.

51


Figure 2. Buckwheat planted with 30cm row spacing at 1bu/ac without (left) and with (right) weed control (left). Taken July 31, 2013 at Portage la Prairie.

Figure 3. Buckwheat planted with 60cm row spacing at 1bu/ac without (left) and with (right) weed control (left). Taken July 31, 2013 at Portage la Prairie.

Figure 4. Buckwheat planted with 60cm row spacing at 0.67bu/ac without (left) and with (right) weed control (left). Taken July 31, 2013 at Portage la Prairie.

52


Figure 5. Buckwheat planted with 60cm row spacing at 0.33bu/ac without (left) and with (right) weed control (left). Taken July 31, 2013 at Portage la Prairie.

Figure 6. Weedy Control. Taken July 31, 2013 at Portage la Prairie. Summary Reduction of buckwheat seeding rate and doubling of row spacing from 30cm to 60cm did not significantly reduce buckwheat grain yield. A further reduction in seeding rate may reduce grain yield when the resulting plant stand is less than 40 plants/m2, or in shorter/more stressful growing seasons. Buckwheat grain yield was not significantly impacted by weed competition; verifying its historical use as a smother crop. References

1. http://www.minndak.com/BuckwheatProduction.htm 2. S. T. Ali-Khan; Effect of Row Spacing and Seeding Rate on Yield of Buckwheat. Agronomy

Journal. Vol. 65 No. 6, p. 914-915, 1973. 3. C.G. Campbell & G.H. Gubbels; Growing Buckwheat. Agriculture Canada Research

Branch. Technical bulletin 1986-7E.

53


Buckwheat variety testing Principal Investigators: MBGA MCVET Co-Investigators: Craig Linde, CMCDC – Carberry Support: Growing Forward 2 MCVET Progress: Ongoing Objective: Evaluate newly registered buckwheat varieties for adaptation and

yield performance in the Central Plains region of Manitoba. Contact Information: [email protected] [email protected] 2013 Project Report Variety trials for all of Manitoba's major crops are conducted across the crop growing regions of Manitoba every year by the Manitoba Crop Variety Evaluation Team (MCVET). This performance data, along with variety characteristic information, is summarized in “SEED MANITOBA” and online at www.seedinteractive.ca. Both formats provide long term yield data as well as annual yield comparisons at various locations. The trial in Carberry was planted June 6th, and in Portage la Prairie on June 7th. Plots in Carberry were swathed Sept 16th and on September 25th in Portage la Prairie. Yield results for Carberry and Portage la Prairie are in table 1.

Table 1. Buckwheat grain yield (kg/ha) in Carberry and Portage la Prairie, 2013.

Variety CMCDC Grain Yield

(kg/ha) Carberry Grain Yield

(kg/ha) Portage Grain Yield

(kg/ha)

Koma 1098 1022 1251

Koto 1994 1385 3212

Horizon 1806 1216 2986

AC Springfield 2036 1365 3378

Mancan 1492 1228 2019

AC Manitoba 1728 1394 2396

CV 8 10 5

LSD 166 205 307

Prob. Entry <0.01 0.01 <0.01

GRAND MEAN 1693 1268 2540

54


Industrial hemp variety evaluation Principal Investigators: National Hemp Trade Alliance Co-Investigators: Craig Linde, CMCDC – Carberry Jeff Kostuik, PCDF – Roblin Scott Chalmers, WADO – Melita Paula Halabicki, PESAI – Arborg Wendy Asbil, University of Guelph – Kemptville, ON Hemp Genetics International Inc. – Melfort, SK Terramax Corporation – Qu'Appelle, SK Alberta Innovates Technology Futures – Vegreville, AB Support: Growing Forward 2 Progress: Ongoing Objective: To evaluate industrial hemp varieties for fibre and grain yield. Contact Information: [email protected] 2013 Project Report Industrial Hemp has been licensed to grow in Canada by Health Canada since 1998. Since that time, grain processing and market development has led the industry. Data from the annual Industrial Hemp trials from the Manitoba locations are included in 'Seed Manitoba', a publication produced each year through the collaboration of the Manitoba Seed Growers Association, Farm Business Communications, Manitoba Crop Variety Evaluation Team, and Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Hemp varieties exhibit considerable differences in maturity, seed size, height, fibre yield and ease of harvest. These factors are also influenced by location, seeding date, climate, irrigation and fertility. It is recommended to seek professional advice when selecting varieties most suitable for your area and production system. Industrial hemp varieties were tested at the Manitoba Crop Diversification centers with the varieties tested at each location listed in table 1. Agronomic practices and trial set-up information is listed in table 2 and table 3. Table 1. Industrial hemp varieties evaluated in 2013 at Manitoba locations.

Arborg Carberry Melita Roblin

Canda Canda Canda Canda CFX-2 Silesia CFX-2 CFX-2 CRS-1 X59 CRS-1 CRS-1 Finola Debbie Debbie Silesia Delores Delores

X59 Joey Finola X59 Joey Silesia X59

Table 2. Industrial hemp experiment parameters at Manitoba locations, 2013.

55


Arborg Carberry Melita Roblin

Treatments 6 3 7 9 Replication 4 4 4 4 Plot Size Seeded 11.0m² 8.4m² 16.5m² 7.0m² Plot Size Harvested 8.22m2 6.0m2 12.96m2 5.0m² Seeding Date May 23 May 13 May 13 May 22 Seeding Rate 250 pl/m² 250 pl/m² 250 pl/m² 250 pl/m² Fibre Harvest Date Aug. 30 Aug. 15 Aug. 9 Aug. 13 Grain Harvest Date Sep. 25 Sep. 13 Aug. 28 Sep. 10 Grain Days from Seeding to Combining

126 123 107 112

Table 3. Fertilizer applied to 2013 industrial hemp variety trials in Manitoba. Arborg Carberry Melita Roblin

Nutrients Available (Soil test)

N* N/A 35 lbs/ac 21 lbs/ac 52 lbs/ac P* N/A 32 lbs/ac 2 ppm 12 ppm K* N/A 306 ppm 170 ppm 198 ppm S* N/A 52 lbs/ac 68 lbs/ac 102 lbs/ac pH N/A 5.8 8.3 6.7

Nutrients Applied

N* 90 lbs/ac 115 lbs/ac 90 lbs/ac 100 lbs/ac P2O5* 27 lbs/ac 25 lbs/ac 30 lbs/ac 55 lbs/ac K2O* 15 lbs/ac 0 0 10 lbs/ac S* 20 lbs/ac 0 0 10 lbs/ac

Plant establishment at each location is in table 4. Sites varied in the number of plants established; however, based on earlier work by the diversification centers all sites were still within the establishment range necessary for achieving optimal grain yield. Though Arborg was at the lower limit, which suggests that in order to reach yield potential growing conditions would need to be very good (CMCDC annual report, 2012). Typically, lower plant populations will have a greater negative impact on fiber yield verses grain yield.

56


Table 4. Industrial hemp plant establishment at Manitoba variety trial locations, 2013. Variety Arborg Carberry Melita Roblin

Canda 52 72 209 360

CFX-2 46 -- 203 323

CRS-1 59 -- 245 318

Debbie -- -- 174 358

Delores -- -- 209 310

Finola 53 -- -- 365

Joey -- -- 217 378

Silesia 63 83 -- 393

X59 69 99 280 440

Grand Mean

57 85 220 360

CV % 16.8 14.0 14.4 14.0

LSD 14.4 20.5 47 73.7

Sign Diff Yes Yes Yes Yes

Overall grain yield and grain yield by location is in table 5. Carberry was among the highest yielding locations despite having the second lowest plant populations. This was not surprising given the excellent growing conditions. In contrast, Arborg was not able to compensate for its low plant populations. Varietal differences in thousand kernel weight are in table 6. Higher thousand kernel weights are favored for hemp heart production so depending on the production contract this should be one of many considerations when selecting a variety. Table 5. Grain yield (kg/ha) of industrial hemp varieties in Manitoba, 2013. Variety Total

(kg/ha) N % Check Arborg Carberry Melita Roblin

(CRS-1)

Canda 1642 4 106 687 2192 1401 2289

CFX-2 1415 3 103 601 -- 1305 2340

CRS-1 1380 3 100 669 -- 1358 2114

Debbie 1871 2 108 -- -- 1404 2337

Delores 1857 2 107 -- -- 1391 2323

Finola 1208 2 87 424 -- -- 1991

Joey 2142 2 123 -- -- 1569 2715

Silesia 1095 3 65 472 1466 -- 1347

X59 1818 4 101 918 3093 1218 2043

Grand Total 427 1190 978 1646

CV% 6.6 9.8 6.5 7.7

LSD 63 380 N/A 244

Significant Difference Yes Yes N/A Yes

57


Table 6. Industrial hemp thousand kernel weight from 2013 Manitoba variety trials. Variety Arborg Carberry Melita Roblin

Canda 18.3 21.4 -- 19.3 CFX-2 16.5 -- -- 17.0 CRS-1 17.5 -- -- 17.6 Debbie -- -- -- 18.1 Delores -- -- -- 18.2 Finola 13.0 -- -- 12.0 Joey -- -- -- 18.3 Silesia 14.3 17.8 -- 16.2 X59 17.3 18.6 -- 17.6

Grand Mean

16.1 19.3 -- 17.1

CV % 3.5 7.3 -- 3.8 LSD 0.9 2.4 -- 1.0 Sign Diff Yes Yes -- Yes

Fiber yield is in table 7. Roblin had the highest fiber yield, which coincides with it also having the highest plant population. The surprise was the Arborg location, which was second in fibre production, despite being the lowest in plant establishment. Higher plant populations typically result in a reduction in crop height, but the increased number of stems per acre over compensate for this reduction. Crop height differences are shown in figure 1. Arborg grew the highest crop based on similar varieties, in some cases by as much as 95cm, which may account for it still yielding sufficient fiber despite the lower plant density. Table 7. Industrial hemp fiber yield in Manitoba variety trials, 2013. Variety Total

kg/ha N % Check

(Canda) Arborg Carberry Melita Roblin

Canda 8433 6 100 12525 5620 4120 16975 CFX-2 7223 4 58 7216 -- 1750 -- CRS-1 8779 4 82 10617 -- 1572 -- Debbie

10686 2 101 -- -- 3321 18050

Delores

8145 4 100 -- -- 3799 17525

Finola 6510 3 46 4645 -- -- -- Joey 8315 3 99 -- -- 3749 18025 Silesia 12638 6 127 15594 7736 -- 19575 X59 6701 7 66 8461 4353 1126 11825

Grand Total 6849 3176 2053 11631 CV% 17.3 13.1 25.7 10.5 LSD 2563 1333 1066 2693

Significant Difference Yes Yes Yes Yes

58


Figure 1. Height of industrial hemp in 2013 Manitoba variety trials.

59


Phosphorus ramp demonstration Principal Investigators: John Heard, MAFRD Co-Investigators: Craig Linde, CMCDC – Carberry Jeff Kostuik, PCDF – Roblin Support: Growing Forward 2 Progress: Ongoing Objective: Demonstrate the effect of phosphorus buildup and drawdown on crop

yields in Manitoba. Contact Information: [email protected] 2013 Project Report Most soils on research stations are starting at medium to high soil phosphorus levels. As a result any response to added phosphorus typically only occurs approximately 50% of the time with any visual differences being very subtle; rate of maturity, moisture at harvest. There are few long term studies looking at soil phosphorus buildup and drawdown with different fertilization strategies and because of the dynamics of soil phosphorus it is important to understand the long-term implications. This is a non-replicated demonstration that over time will provide an estimation of the rate of soil depletion with under-fertilization or the buildup rate associated with excessive rates of fertilization. At Carberry a long term site was chosen that had been in forage grass production for the previous 3 years to minimize spatial variability. The crop rotation is as follows: Potatoes (2012) - Wheat (2013) - Soybeans (2014) - Canola (2015). In 2012 there were no effects of Phosphorus fertility on potato yield or Phosphorus content of tubers. Phosphorus (TSP) was applied at increasing rates for wheat from 0-100lbs/ac in the spring prior to planting by banding phosphorus at 2” depth, perpendicular to planting direction. All other nutrients and agronomic practices are held constant and according to normal recommendations for the region. Initial soil testing (tested fall 2012) and fertility for 2013 is in table 1 & table 2. A similar phosphorus application scheme will continue to be applied each year on each crop. Soil testing and tissue testing were conducted to document phosphorus buildup and removal from the soil.

Table 1. Long term P demonstration initial soil testing and 2013 fertilizer added.

Nutrient (Source) Actual (lbs/ac) Soil Test (lbs/ac)

Nitrogen (46-0-0) 100 16

Phosphorus (TSB) 0-100 See table 2

Potassium (0-0-60) 0 622*

Sulfur (21-0-0-24) 0 68

*ppm Soil pH - 6.2 Soil OM - 6.3%

60


Table 2. Available and Phosphorus applied in 2012 and 2013 on Long term P demonstration in Carberry.

2012 Applied

2012 Fall Soil Test

2013 Applied

2013 Total AvailableA

2013 RemovedB

2013 Fall Soil TestC

Adsorbed (A-(B+C))

Plot P (lbs/ac) P (lbs/ac) P (lbs/ac) P (lbs/ac) P (lbs/ac) P (lbs/ac) P (lbs/ac)

11 140 46 100 146 28 40 78 10 130 52 90 142 25 44 73 9 120 38 80 118 22 64 32 8 110 38 70 108 21 42 45 7 100 56 60 116 25 24 67 6 90 32 50 82 22 30 30 5 80 36 40 76 22 52 2 4 70 56 30 86 24 52 10 3 60 54 20 74 21 44 9 2 50 66 10 76 23 44 9 1 40 56 0 56 24 40 0

There was general increase in both wheat grain yield and straw yield as phosphorus fertility increased in 2013 (figure 1). Regression analysis confirmed a linear relationship with a slope greater than 0 for both grain yield (p=0.004) and straw yield (p=0.014).

Figure 1. Effect of actual phosphorus (lbs/ac) added prior to planting on wheat grain yield (kg/ha) and straw yield (kg/ha) at Carberry, 2013.

61


Narrow Row Edible Bean Variety Testing

Principal Investigators: MPGA MCVET

Co-Investigators: Craig Linde, CMCDC – Carberry

Support: Growing Forward 2 MCVET MPGA

Progress: Ongoing

Objective: Evaluate newly registered Edible Bean varieties for adaptation and yield performance in the Central Plains region of Manitoba under narrow row conditions.

Contact Information: [email protected] [email protected]

2013 Project Report Variety trials for all of Manitoba's major crops are conducted across the crop growing regions of Manitoba every year by the Manitoba Crop Variety Evaluation Team (MCVET). This performance data, along with variety characteristic information, is summarized in “SEED MANITOBA” and online at www.seedinteractive.ca. Both formats provide long term yield data as well as annual yield comparisons at various locations. Included on MCVET is a representative from The Manitoba Pulse Growers Association making them a strong partner and an effective collaborator for conducting pulse variety trials throughout Manitoba. The purpose of the narrow row edible bean trial is to identify varieties suitable for direct harvest in non-typical edible bean growing regions (outside the Red River Valley). The trial was planted in Carberry on May 22nd, 2013 with 60lbs of actual N mid row banded during seeding. Plots were sprayed with a 0.71L/ac rate of Bentazon on June 13, 2013. Plots were harvested on October 7, 2013. Grain yield results for 2013 are shown in figure 1 by type.


62


Figure 1. Edible Bean grain yield at Carberry, 2013 grown in narrow (30cm) row spacing, direct harvested. CV= 9%; LSD=475kg/ha

63


Snap Bean Variety Evaluation Principal Investigators: Tom Gonsalves, MAFRD – Carman Assiniboine Community College Culinary Arts Institute Co-Investigators: CMCDC Support: Growing Forward 2 T & T Seeds Progress: Year 1 of 3 Objective: Evaluate snap bean varieties available to Manitoba producers. Contact Information: [email protected] 2013 Project Report Consumers have historically bought locally produced snap beans when available. One variety each of green, yellow & purple beans were evaluated. In order to assess which varieties performed best under local Manitoba conditions this trial was initiated. The price for beans is usually highest for the first 7 to 10 days or so of their availability in the marketplace. In order to have beans available as early as possible producers have experimented with transplanting beans for early market instead of direct seeding. A randomized complete block irrigated snap bean variety evaluation trial was designed and planting at CMCDC Portage la Prairie. The trial was designed with 3 dates of seeding; June 10, July 4 and July 28. There was one date of transplanting included on June 8. The transplanting date was approximately 14 days later than originally planned. Some of the transplants flowered immediately after transplanting and all of the transplants matured unevenly, possibly influencing yield. The Culinary Arts Institute at Assiniboine Community College provided quality evaluations. The varieties included in the trial are in table 1.

64


Table 1. Snap Bean Varieties evaluated at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. Variety Name Fruit Colour Days to Maturity Tendergreen

Green 52

Goldrush

Yellow 53

Purple Royalty

Purple 53

Hand harvesting was conducted on July 31, August 12, August 19, August 27, September 9 and September 20. JULY 31st HARVEST Only the transplanted plots were ready to harvest on this date with Purple Royalty producing the greatest yield of 615 kg/ha (Figure 1); however, this was not significantly different than the yield of Gold Rush. Tendergreen produced the least amount of beans.

Figure 1. July 31st harvest of snap beans from three varieties transplanted June 7 at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. LSD=496kg/ha.

65


AUGUST 12th HARVEST Purple Royalty had the highest marketable yield from the transplanted plots with 2565 kg/ha. Harvest results of the June 8 seeded plots showed Tendergreen yielded the most marketable beans with 1609 kg/ha. (figure 2).

Figure 2: August 12th harvest of snap beans from three varieties planted on different dates at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. Transplanted LSD=243kg/ha. Seeded June 8 LSD=578kg/ha. AUGUST 19th HARVEST Purple Royalty had the highest marketable yield from the transplanted plots with 2094 kg/ha. Harvest results of the June 8 seeded plots showed Tendergreen produced the greatest amount of marketable beans with 3498 kg/ha. (figure 3).

Figure 3. August 19th harvest of snap beans from three varieties planted on different dates at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. Transplanted LSD=607kg/ha. Seeded June 8 LSD=802kg/ha.

66


AUGUST 27th HARVEST Tendergreen and Purple Royalty produced significantly more marketable yield than Gold Rush from the transplanted plots; producing 1502 kg/ha and 1256 kg/ha, respectively. There were no significant differences in yield among treatments for the June 8 or July 4 planting dates.

Figure 4. August 27th harvest of snap beans from three varieties planted on different dates at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. Transplanted LSD=372kg/ha. Seeded June 8 LSD=ns. Seeded July 4 LSD=ns

SEPTEMBER 9th HARVEST Again, Tendergreen and Purple Royalty produced significantly more marketable yield than Gold Rush from the transplanted plots; producing 1681 kg/ha and 1543 kg/ha, respectively. There were no significant differences in yield among treatments for the June 8 or July 4 planting dates (figure 5).

Figure 5. September 9th harvest of snap beans from three varieties planted on different dates at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. Transplanted LSD=377kg/ha. Seeded June 8 LSD=ns. Seeded July 4 LSD=ns

67


SEPTEMBER 20th HARVEST There were no marketable beans to harvest from the transplanted plots. There were no significant differences in yield among treatments for the July 4 planting date. For the July 28 seeded seeding date Purple Royalty producing the greatest yield of marketable beans at 856 kg/ha. (figure 6).

Figure 6. September 20th harvest of snap beans from three varieties planted on different dates at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. Seeded July 4 LSD=ns. Seeded July 28 LSD=640 kg/ha. OVERALL RIPE YIELD The greatest overall yield was attained with the early June seeding date, overall yielding over 2.5 times more than the July 4th seeding date and almost 4 times as much as the transplanted plots. The least yield was harvested from those plots planted late July – almost 35 times less than the June 8th planting date.

Figure 7. Harvesting Snap Beans September 9th, 2013 at CMCDC Portage la Prairie. The sum of all the harvests from transplanted beans resulted in Purple Royalty having the greatest marketable bean yield at 8073 kg/ha. Total bean yield was not significantly different for seeding dates of June 8 or July 4th. (figures 8a-c).

68


Figure 8a. Total marketable Snap Bean yield for various varieties partitioned by harvest date; transplanted June 7th at CMCDC. LSD=1284 kg/ha.

Figure 8b. Total marketable Snap Bean yield for various varieties partitioned by harvest date; seeded June 8th at CMCDC. LSD=ns.

Figure 8c. Total marketable Snap Bean yield for various varieties partitioned by harvest date; seeded July 4th at CMCDC. LSD=ns.

69


QUALITY OBSERVATIONS Criteria used in quality evaluations included; appearance, texture, flavour and an overall rating. The beans were prepared in many ways including being preserved.

Figure 9. Preserved Beans at Assiniboine Community College. Student chefs from the Culinary Arts Institute at ACC were supplied with snap beans from the trial after the Sept 9 harvest was graded. Samples were placed in boxes and stored temporarily in a cooler and delivered to ACC on Sept 10. Tendergreen and Goldrush had an overall quality rating of between average and excellent while Purple Royalty was rated as poor. When cooked, the purple pigment in Purple Royalty leach out and the cooked bean was green in colour. This, along with the texture as well as taste all contributed to it being rated as poor.

70


Multi-Coloured Tomato Variety Evaluation Principal Investigators: Tom Gonsalves, MAFRD – Carman Assiniboine Community College Culinary Arts Institute Co-Investigators: CMCDC Support: Growing Forward 2 T & T Seeds Heritage Harvest Seed Progress: Year 3 of 4 Objective: Evaluate non-red tomato varieties available to Manitoba producers

versus a common early red standard variety (Manitoba). Contact Information: [email protected] 2013 Project Report Continued for another year, this trial evaluates non-red tomato varieties available to Manitoba producers versus a common early red standard variety (Manitoba). A randomized replicated and irrigated tomato variety evaluation trial was designed and planted at CMCDC Portage la Prairie. The tomatoes were started in the greenhouse on Apr 19th. The plants were transplanted by hand into the field on June 6. The varieties included in the trial are in table 1.

71


Table 1. Tomato Varieties evaluated at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. Variety Name Growth type Fruit Colour Days to Ripe Manitoba

Determinate Red 60

Carbon

Indeterminate Burgundy ("black") 75

Kellogg's Breakfast

Indeterminate Orange 90

Lemon Boy

Determinate Yellow (low acid) 50

Morden Yellow

Determinate Yellow 65

Persimmon

Determinate Orange 80

White Zebra

Indeterminate Yellow/Green Striped 75

Jumbo Jim

Indeterminate Orange 80

Early Girl

Indeterminate Red 54

Varieties were planted in 2 row plots with 3 foot spacing in the row between plants and between rows. Hand harvesting occurred six times: July 31 (55 DAT), August 14 (69 DAT), August 23 (78 DAT), September 6 (92 DAT), September 15 (101 DAT) and September 25 (111 DAT).

72


55 DAYS AFTER TRANSPLANTING Manitoba was the only variety with yield at 55 days after transplanting (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Fruit yield as under-ripe, ripe and over-ripe tomatoes 55 days after transplanting at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. 69 DAYS AFTER TRANSPLANTING There were no significant differences in yields of under=ripe fruit at 69 days after transplanting. Manitoba and Morden Yellow had the greatest ripe and over-ripe fruit yield (figure 2).

Figure 2. Fruit yield as under-ripe, ripe and over-ripe tomatoes 69 days after transplanting at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013.

73


78 DAYS AFTER TRANSPLANTING There were no significant differences in yield of ripe fruit. The average weight per ripe fruit of Carbon, Kellogg’s Breakfast and Persimmon were the greatest; however, these varieties produced the fewest number of ripe fruit. Manitoba had a significantly lower yield of under ripe fruit compared to other varieties (figure 3) and the greatest amount of over ripe fruit, along with Carbon & Morden Yellow.

Figure 3. Fruit yield as under-ripe, ripe and over-ripe tomatoes 78 days after transplanting at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. 92 DAYS AFTER TRANSPLANTING Morden Yellow had the greatest yield at 92 DAT (Figure 4) of ripe tomatoes. With Carbon having the greatest number of over-ripe tomatoes. The only variety with under-ripe tomatoes was also Morden Yellow at 27kg/ha.


74


101 DAYS AFTER TRANSPLANTING Jumbo Jim Morden Yellow, Carbon and Kellogg’s Breakfast were not significantly different and shared the greatest ripe yield at 101 DAT.

Figure 5. Fruit yield as under-ripe, ripe and over-ripe tomatoes 101 days after transplanting at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. 111 DAYS AFTER TRANSPLANTING At the final harvest Carbon overtook Morden Yellow for greatest ripe yield, followed by Jumbo Jim and Kellogg’s Breakfast (figure 6).


75


OVERALL RIPE YIELD Morden Yellow and Carbon had the greatest tomato yield, with Morden Yellow yield accumulating more evenly throughout the season (figure 7). The lowest yielding variety was Persimmon.

Figure 7. Overall ripe tomato fruit yield for various varieties partitioned by harvest date (DAT) at CMCDC. LSD=14760. The average weight and number of ripe tomatoes per square meter was significant with sizes reflecting the variety descriptions. Morden Yellow and Carbon produced the greatest yields in different ways; Morden Yellow produced significantly smaller tomatoes but many more of them (figure 8). Overall the numbers of unripe and overripe fruit was small relative to ripe fruit and as would be expected the variability in size of unripe and overripe fruit was high in some cases.

76


Multi-Coloured Pepper Variety Evaluation Principal Investigators: Tom Gonsalves, MAFRD – Carman Assiniboine Community College Culinary Arts Institute Co-Investigators: CMCDC Support: Growing Forward 2 T & T Seeds Progress: Year 3 of 4 Objective: Evaluate non-red pepper varieties available to Manitoba producers

versus a common early red standard variety (Blushing Beauty). Contact Information: [email protected] 2013 Project Report Consumers have historically bought locally produced sweet bell type peppers when they are available. In order to assess which varieties performed best under local Manitoba conditions this trial was initiated. A sweet banana type was added to the trial as well. producers vs. a common early red standard variety (Manitoba). A randomized complete block irrigated pepper variety evaluation trial was designed and planting at CMCDC Portage la Prairie. The peppers were started in the greenhouse on April 11, 2013. The plants were transplanted by hand out in the field on June 6. The varieties included in the trial are in table 1.

77


Table 1. Pepper varieties evaluated at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. Variety Name Description Fruit Colour Days to Maturity Blushing Beauty

Sweet red bell pepper. Red 67

Early Sunsation

Sweet orange bell pepper.

Orange 69

Fatn’ Sassy

Sweet green bell pepper.

Green na

Banana Supreme

Sweet Russian pepper.

Yellow 65

Hand harvesting occurred six times: August 13 (68 DAT), August 22 (77 DAT), August 27 (83 DAT), September 3 (90 DAT), September 12 (99 DAT) and October 1 (118 DAT). 68 DAYS AFTER TRANSPLANTING Fat n’ Sassy had the highest marketable yield of 9078 kg/ha followed by Banana Supreme with 2350 kg/ha. These were the only varieties with any measurable marketable yield (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Pepper yield as over-ripe and ripe 68 days after transplanting at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. Ripe LSD=2028kg/ha. 77 DAYS AFTER TRANSPLANTING

78


There were no yields of Blushing Beauty or Early Sunsation. Fat n’ Sassy’s had the greatest marketable yield at 6692 kg/ha. Although this was not significantly different from Banana Supreme was with 6225 kg/ha (figure 2).

Figure 2. Pepper yield as over-ripe and ripe 77 days after transplanting at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. Ripe LSD=3232kg/ha. 83 DAYS AFTER TRANSPLANTING Again there was no significant difference between Banana Supreme and Fat n’Sassy, producing 5364kg/ha and 5005 kg/ha, respectively (figure 3).

Figure 3. Pepper yield as over-ripe and ripe 83 days after transplanting at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. Ripe LSD=3731kg/ha.

79


90 DAYS AFTER TRANSPLANTING Banana Supreme had the greatest marketable yield of 6,817 kg/ha followed by Fat n’ Sassy with 2189 kg/ha. The first marketable peppers from Blushing Beauty and Early Sunsation were harvested.

Figure 4. Pepper yield as over-ripe and ripe 90 days after transplanting at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. Ripe LSD=2971kg/ha.

99 DAYS AFTER TRANSPLANTING There were no significant differences among marketable (or Over-ripe) yield at 99 DAT, despite Fat n’ Sassy producing a marketable yield of 3,857 kg/ha (figure 5).

Figure 5. Pepper yield as over-ripe and ripe 99 days after transplanting at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. LSD=ns.

80


118 DAYS AFTER TRANSPLANTING Early Sunsation yielded 22389 kg/ha marketable yield followed by Blushing Beauty with 18532 kg/ha marketable yield. (figure 6).

Figure 6. Pepper yield as over-ripe and ripe 99 days after transplanting at CMCDC, Portage la Prairie 2013. LSD=6163 kg/ha. OVERALL RIPE YIELD The sum of the marketable yields from all harvest dates was greatest for Fat ’n Sassy at 37171 kg/ha. The sum of the marketable yields from all harvest dates for Banana Supreme, Early Sunsation and Blushing Beauty were not significantly different. (figure 7).

Figure 7. Total marketable pepper yield for various varieties partitioned by harvest date (DAT) at CMCDC. LSD=8942 kg/ha. Banana Supreme had the significantly lowest average pepper weight of 40g (figure 8) but also the highest number of peppers harvested on average per meter square.

81


With the exception of 99 DAT, overall the numbers of unripe and overripe fruit was small relative to ripe fruit and as would be expected the variability in size of unripe and overripe fruit was high in some cases.

Figure 8. Average weight per pepper and numbers harvested per square meter for varieties grown at Portage la Prairie in 2013: Values are shown for ripe fruit only: Ripe peppers/m2 LSD = 17/m2; Ripe pepper average weight LSD = 23g.

Figure 8. Average weight per tomato and numbers harvested per square meter for varieties grown at Portage la Prairie in 2013: Values are shown for ripe fruit only: Ripe tomatoes/m2 LSD =.14/m2; Ripe tomato average weight LSD=40g.

82


Evaluation of Manure Compost on Vegetable Production

Principal Investigators: Tom Gonsalves, Vegetable Crops Specialist, MAFRD Katherine Buckley, Research Scientist, Integrated Agricultural

Management, AAFC

Co-Investigators: Canada-Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre.

Support: Growing Forward

Progress: Ongoing

Objective: Investigate the effect of rotation and compost on vegetable (carrot/potato/pepper) production.


2013 Project Report

Most vegetable crops return small amounts of crop residue to the soil. Composted organic amendments can help maintain soil organic matter levels and enhance soil fertility and biological activity. An understanding of the proper use of manure compost is essential from both a production and environmental standpoint. Manitoba Agriculture, Food & Rural Development (MAFRD) has partnered with the Canada Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre (CMCDC) at Portage la Prairie and Agriculture Agri-Food Canada’s (AAFC) Brandon Research Centre (BRC) to evaluate the response of horticultural crops to manure compost. Original soil test results (2011) to 60cm on the site showed residual NO3 levels of approximately 25 lbs/A & extractable P concentrations ranged from 9 to 18 ppm (medium to high). In 2011 the following fertility treatments were applied; Compost 10 t/A, Compost 20t/A, Fertilizer blended based on soil test recommendation, Zero fertilizer check. In 2011 rotational treatments were Wheat, Silage Corn, Hairy Vetch, Fallow (check). See below for a re-cap of 2012 results. Fertility treatments were re-applied in 2013 and the appropriate rotational crops were sown in the plots. In 2014 irrigation will be installed in the plots and plans are to further evaluate crop performance under irrigation. 2012 RESULTS In 2012 the same fertility treatments were reapplied. Vegetable crops sown included carrots (Nantes Coreless), Green Peppers (Fat'n'Sassy), and Potatoes (Dark Red Norland). Pre-plant soil nutrients are in table 1.

Table 1: 2012 pre-plant soil macro-nutrients for compost trial in Portage la Prairie.

83


Plo

t

Fer

tili

zer

Pre

vio

us

Cro

p

Nit

rate

0-6

" (l

bs/

ac)

Nit

rate

6-2

4"

(lbs/

ac)

Nit

rate

0-2

4"

(lbs/

ac)

Phosp

horu

s (p

pm

)

P2O

5 (

lbs/

ac)

Pota

ssiu

m (

ppm

)

Sulf

ur

0

-6"

(lbs/

ac)

Sulf

ur

6-2

4"

(lbs/

ac)

Sulf

ur

0

-24"

(lbs/

ac)

Org

anic

Mat

er (

%)

10

1

10 t/ac

Compost Fallow 67

11

7

18

4 7 32

31

1 74

23

4

30

8 6.4

10

2

10 t/ac

Compost Wheat 50 87

13

7 9 41

25

0 62

15

6

21

8 5.7

10

3

10 t/ac

Compost Silage Corn 31 81

11

2 7 32

15

3 40

15

6

19

6 5.6

10

4

10 t/ac

Compost Hairy Vetch 72 93

16

5 11 51

22

1 82

19

8

28

0 5.6

20

1 Zero N Fallow 55

12

3

17

8 7 32

38

4 46

27

0

31

6 6.5

20

2 Zero N Wheat 50

11

4

16

4 9 41

28

7 36

12

6

16

2 6.2

20

3 Zero N Silage Corn 34 66

10

0 5 23

14

1 52

15

6

20

8 4.7

20

4 Zero N Hairy Vetch 71

17

4

24

5 4 18

19

5

11

2

33

6

44

8 5.5

30

1 Syn Fert Fallow 61 66

12

7 8 37

31

9 60 96

15

6 6

30

2 Syn Fert Wheat 93

16

8

26

1 13 60

27

6 36 78

11

4 6.1

30

3 Syn Fert Silage Corn 49 60

10

9 11 51

17

3

10

2

26

4

36

6 5.5

30

4 Syn Fert Hairy Vetch 94 78

17

2 13 60

23

2 82

29

4

37

6 5.5

40

1

20 t/ac

Compost Fallow

11

7 93

21

0 10 46

37

0

12

0

14

4

26

4 6.5

40

2

20 t/ac

Compost Wheat 53 81

13

4 10 46

19

0 62

20

4

26

6 5.4

40

3

20 t/ac

Compost Silage Corn 41 95

13

6 9 41

14

6 72

22

2

29

4 5.5

40

4

20 t/ac

Compost Hairy Vetch 87

23

7

32

4 19 87

28

0

10

2

36

0

46

2 6.9 Potato & pepper marketable yields across all treatments were low likely due to a water deficit. Pepper yields varied between 700 and 1,700 lbs/A, therefore the pepper data was not deemed reliable in assessing the treatments. Potato yields were highest on the wheat rotation and lowest on the silage corn rotation. The 10 t/ac compost treatment produced the highest potato yield while the 20 t/ac compost treatment produced the lowest potato yields (figure 1).

84


Figure 1: Effect of fertilizer, compost application (t/ac) and previous crop on marketable potato tuber yield (cwt/ac) at Portage la Prairie, 2012. Carrot yields at both harvest dates were highest on the fallow rotation and lowest with the hairy vetch rotation in the October harvest, possibly due to greater nitrate and moisture levels in the fallow treatment. The 20 t/ac compost treatment produced the highest carrot yields (figure 2).

Figure 2: Effect of fertilizer, compost application (t/ac) and previous crop on total carrot yield (lbs/ac) at Portage la Prairie, 2012.

131 132 125 120 127

123 163 121 109 129

182 156

129 126 148

113 128

75 116 108

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Fallow Wheat Silage Corn Hairy Vetch Overall

Mar

keta

ble

Tu

be

r Y

ield

(cw

t/ac

)

Previous Rotation Crop

20 t

10 t

Syn Fert

Zero N

45,680 25,715 29,836 25,395 31,657

46,638

35,618 32,775 30,187

36,304

43,444

29,069 43,412

22,041

34,492

44,466

29,708

42,773

30,219

36,792

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Fallow Wheat Silage Corn Hairy Vetch Overall

Tota

l Car

rot

Yie

ld (

lbs/

ac)

Previous Crop

20 t

10 t

Syn Fert

Zero N

85


Evaluation of new fruit crops for Manitoba

Principal Investigators: Prairie Fruit Growers Association Anthony Mintenko, Fruit Crops Business Development Specialist

MAFRD

Co-Investigators: Dr. Bob Bors, University of Saskatchewan

Support: Growing Forward 2 Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council

Progress: Various – see below

Objective: Overall; to examine new fruit crops under Manitoba conditions.


2013 Projects Report

1) Saskatoon and Seabuckthorn Variety Demonstration

Principal Investigator: Anthony Mintenko, MAFRD Fruit Crops Business Development Specialist

Support: PFGA, MAFRI, Progress: Year 8 of 15.

Objective: To demonstrate to existing and potential new fruit producers different Saskatoon varieties available

and 4 Seabuckthorn varieties released by AAFC under Manitoba conditions. Harvest Moon and Orange

September were planted in 2007 while 2 new cultivars were planted in 2012, Autumn Gold and Prairie Sunset.

2013 Progress: Monitored plantings in 2013.

2) Canadian Day-Neutral Variety Evaluation Trial

Principal Investigator: Anthony Mintenko, MAFRD Fruit Crops Business Development Specialist

Cooperators: Dr. Adam Dale, University of Guelph, Becky Hughes, Univ of Guelph – Kemptville, John

Zandstra, Univ of Guelph – Ridgetown, Chaim Kempler, AAFC, PARC – Agassiz, BC, Craig Chandler, Univ. of

Florida/GCREC, Vance Whitaker, Univ. of Florida/GCREC

Support: PFGA, MAFRI, University of Guelph, CHC Agri-Science Cluster AAFC funding.

Progress: Year 1 of 2.

Objective: This project will demonstrate day-neutral strawberry plastic mulch production system and evaluate

day-neutral advance selections.

2013 Progress: New advanced selections were planted and evaluated for vigour and yield. Will be repeated in 2014.

3) Manitoba New Fruit Crop Diversification Study Principal Investigator: Anthony Mintenko, MAFRD Fruit Crops Business Development Specialist

Co-Investigator: Dr. Bob Bors, Professor, Fruit Crops Breeding and Management Program, University of

Saskatchewan

Support: MRAC, University of Saskatchewan, PFGA, MAFRI, Progress: Year 6 of 15.

Objective: Examining new fruit crops and varieties from Dr. Bob Bors’s University of Saskatchewan Fruit

Breeding and Management Program, under Manitoba conditions (soil, climate, pests). Crops examined: Blue

Honeysuckle, Hazelnut, and Nanking Cherry., Dwarf Sour Cherry, Plum, and Apricot. 2013 Progress: Monitored plantings in 2013.

4) Hybrid Willow Demonstration

Principal Investigator: Shane Tornblom, MAFRI Agro Woodlot Specialists Co-investigator: Anthony Mintenko, MAFRI Fruit Crops Business Development Specialist

Support: PFGA, MAFRI Agro-Woodlot Program, Progress: Year 4 of 10.

86


Objective: To demonstrate the suitability of hybrid willow for rapid shelterbelt development and potential bio-

fuel source. 2013 Update: Monitored plantings in 2013.

5) Strawberry Stock Quality Trial Principal Investigator: Anthony Mintenko, MAFRD Fruit Crops Business Development Specialist

Co-investigator: Waldo Thiessen, Executive Director, Prairie Fruit Growers Association (PFGA)

Support: PFGA, MAFRI Fruit Crops Program, Progress: New plantings annually.

Objective: To evaluate bare-root strawberry cultivars (shipped into Manitoba from all strawberry plant suppliers

for the PFGA membership bulk plant order) for vigour and plant survival. Update: New trial planted and

evaluated for survival and vigour in 2013.

2013 Research Orchard Events

Orchard was toured informally by attendees of Horticulture Diagnostic School (August 2013) PFGA Board of

Directors (June 2013), Nigerian Trade Delegation (July 2013) and by ACC Horticulture Production students and

staff (September 2013).

87


Adaptability of Hops in Manitoba

Principal Investigators: Craig Linde, CMCDC

Co-Investigators: Paula Halabicki, Prairies East Sustainable Agriculture Initiative. Scott Chalmers, Westman Agriculture Diversification Organization. Jeff Kostiuk, Parkland Crop Diversification Foundation

Support: Growing Forward 2


Objective: Evaluation and Demonstrate the adaptability of hops in the Carberry region of Central Plains, Manitoba.


2013 Project Report

Hops are used as a flavoring and preserving ingredient in beer with the majority of production in North America occurring in Washington State, USA. The price of hops can be erratic and harvest very labor intensive without expensive mechanization; however, given the potential for greater price stability due to greater demand for local (organic) production the economics of establishing a hops yard in Manitoba may change in the future. All varieties survived the winter and are now established at CMCDC, Carberry. A trellis was erected in 2013 to provide vines a structure for continued growth and evaluation in 2014.

Table 1: Hop varieties demonstrated at CMCDC Carberry.

Plot Name

1 Casscade 2 Golding 3 Wild Miami 4 Garden 5 Wild Miami 6 Mt Hood 8 Golden 9 Brewers Gold 10 Fuggle

Figure 1: Hop trellis at CMCDC Carberry (measurements in meters).

1.3

7

4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

8m 12m 12m 8m

4.00

40.00

44.00

1.97

88


Western Forage Testing System

Principal Investigators: Doug Friebel, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge

Co-Investigators: Craig Linde: Canada-Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre Glenn Friesen, Forage Specialist, MAFRD

Support: Western Forage Testing, Growing Forward 2

Progress: Ongoing

Objective: To evaluate the performance of new forage varieties for the purpose of registration.

Contact Information: [email protected], [email protected]

2013 Project Report

The Western Forage Testing System (WFTEST) was developed in 1994 to coordinate the testing for registration and performance of forage cultivars across Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The goals of this system are: 1. To streamline and coordinate the registration and performance evaluation process. The tests will provide sufficient data for simultaneous consideration for registration and/or performance listings in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. 2. To share the responsibility for forage testing among provinces, the federal government and the seed trade. 3. To encourage as much data collection as possible and to ensure that the tests are uniform and the sites are inspected. The maximum number of entries to be tested per species per year is 25, including check varieties. If there are too many entries in a given year, only three entries per applicant are accepted.

Carberry currently has only one forage trial that is part of this testing system. This trial was

established 2011. Trials are harvest for two years following their establishment year. This will be

the second year of testing for the trial established in 2011.

Fertilizer broadcast applied to the trials on May 15th

at 100lbs/ac of 46-0-0 to grasses and 50 lbs/ac

of 0-45-0 to alfalfa. Only one cut of the alfalfa trials was taken from trials established in 2011.

Hybrid Brome was harvested July 3rd

while Meadow Brome, Tall Fescue, Timothy, and

Orchardgrass were harvested July 4th. Alfalfa was harvested July 8th

.


89


Forage yield results are summarized in table 1. Coefficients of variance (CV) were low for all

trials, with the exception of Timothy. There were no significant differences (p=0.05) among entries

for any of the forage trials in 2013.

Table 1a

Table 1b

Table 1c

Alfalfa

Hybrid Brome

Meadow Brome

name kg/ha

name kg/ha

name kg/ha

Beaver 5406

AC Knowles 4309

Fleet 5261

AC Blue J 5575

S9478B 4234

S9522 5017

Rambler 5732

Rangelander 5228

LRC07 4151L 5654

AT05 5481

SC A101 5019

AC® Totem 5726

AC® Manitou 5705

GRAND

MEAN 5503

GRAND MEAN 4271

GRAND

MEAN 5139

CV 11

CV 13

CV 8

LSD 876

LSD 1294

LSD 921

Prob. Entry 0.7

Prob. Entry 0.87

Prob. Entry 0.46

Table 1d

Table 1e

Table 1f

Orchardgrass

Tall Fescue

Timothy

name kg/ha

name kg/ha

name kg/ha

Kay 3223

Courtenay 4848

Climax 4346

OG426 3681

Swaj 4411

AC® Pratt 3383

ST1 3646

GRAND

MEAN 3452

GRAND MEAN 4629

GRAND

MEAN 3792

CV 12

CV 6

CV 18

LSD 904

LSD 597

LSD 1179

Prob. Entry 0.21

Prob. Entry 0.10

Prob. Entry 0.20

90


Adaptation of Jerusalem Artichoke to Central Plains (Carberry) region for inulin production.

Principal Investigators: Craig Linde, CMCDC

Co-Investigators: Alberta Innovates AAFC - Saskatoon



Objective: Understand optimum time for stem harvest for inulin extraction.


2013 Project Report

Inulin, a unique storage carbohydrate has been shown to be an important factor in maintaining and

improving the gut health of monogastic organisms. This occurs mainly because it is a desirable

food source for microflora residing in the digestion system thereby promoting encouraging

enhanced populations of these probiotics. The overall improved immunity and general health that

occurs as a result has steadily increased the demand for inulin world wide over the last decade.

Although found in many foods, Jerusalem Artichoke (tubers) and Chicory root are the two highest

natural sources of inulin; the majority of inulin is produced in European countries from Chicory.

Jerusalem Artichoke has advantages over chicory (which can also be grown in Manitoba); it is a

perennial plant with the ability to thrive on marginal soils, it is an aggressive competitor with

weeds, it has many alternate uses. The main disadvantages are related to propagation (seed tuber

source) and long term storage of tubers. In Jerusalem Artichoke inulin is first stored in tall stems

and then later in the season or after flowering it is recycled by the plant to developing tubers. Inulin

can therefore be harvested from either stems or tubers. Harvesting from stems could potentially

reduce the storage risk and costs associated to harvest and replanting provided the appropriate

amount of inulin can be efficiently removed by this method.

Tuber initiation (and translocation of inulin from stems to tubers) is a complicated process in

Jerusalem Artichoke and variability among different varieties is high. Photoperiod (change in day

length), night temperatures, heat accumulation (physiologic maturity) and light intensity are just

some of the factors interacting with genetics to promote inulin translocation and tuber formation.

As tuber formation is important information regarding the management of the crop for maximum

yield (depending on harvest method) it is also important if wanting to maintain a crop for multiple

years or better terminate the crop in the rotation; optimizing inulin harvest from stems verses tuber

production.

This is part three of the germplasm evaluation focusing on understanding the varietal re-growth and

verifying timelines of inulin partitioning between stems and tubers (see CMCDC annual report

2011, 2012). The un-sampled portion of the experiment from 2012 was allowed to re-grow in 2013

with 2012 residue removed using a flail mower on May 7th

just prior to re-growth. Plots were inter-

row cultivated on June 11th

to remove weeds and separate plots as some varieties had spread beyond

their originally planted area. No fertilizer was added in 2013. Plant vigor notes were taken on June

21. Plants were randomly chosen from the east half of each plot and harvested in one week

91


intervals starting August 20th

, 2013. Only stems were harvested, dried and ground for analyzed for

inulin content (Alberta Innovates). Any tubers remained in the ground and will be harvested with

the entire plot in the spring of 2014. Keeping tubers in the ground and harvesting in the spring prior

to re-growth has been found to be the best way to limit storage spoilage. Harvesting the entire plot

will provide a better estimate of tuber yield production.

Re-Growth

Jerusalem Artichoke is very aggressive and typically has no problem out-competing weeds,

especially during the later stages of development as heights can reach in excess of 1.5m and it is

able to easily fill the space provided (even at 36” spacing). Inter-row cultivation was performed

mainly as a means of plot separation rather than to control early weed growth. Spring re-growth

from tubers was assessed on a visual scale of 1-10 with 10 being given to the most vigorous plants

and 1 the least vigorous. Spring vigor ratings are in table 1. Differences among varieties was

significant (p0.05) with SW being among the most vigorous in the spring while NC10-183 and

NC10-199 being the least vigorous.

Inulin Production in Stems

Data from 2012 and 2013 was combined and analyzed using GenStat Mixed Models analysis. Both

Date and Variety were significant (p0.05). As in 2012, inulin concentration in stems was greatest

during the last week of August/first week of September for the majority of the entries (although

slightly lower concentrations overall than in 2012); after which stem concentrations dropped

considerably. The only exception from 2012 to 2013 was line NC10-18 which in 2013 was still

increasing in inulin concentration at the final sampling. Final sampling was earlier in 2013 (Sept 10

– 1515 GDD) and in 2012 this line had its greatest concentration on Sept 7 (1499 GGD) before

dropping on Sept 21st. When comparing the relationship between inulin concentration verses GDD

or calendar date, the relationship stays constant. Considering plants did not emerge in 2012 until

May 30th

verses May 8th

in 2013 this would suggest day length was more influential than heat

accumulations; except that GDD accumulation for peak harvest times were similar in both years:

1315-1499GDD in 2012 & 1325-1425 GDD in 2013 mainly due to the cooler temperatures in 2013.

Data from 2013 therefore supports the 2012 suggestion that the optimal harvest timing of stems of

most varieties tested is the last week of August/first week of September or after an average of 1400

GDD (Base 5C) accumulation.

Figure 1: Average Inulin concentration (mg/g) in Jerusalem Artichoke stems between August 9 and

Sept 21, 2012-2013 in Carberry.

92


Relative biomass production was similar in 2013 to previous years, suggesting that based on

average inulin concentration during the optimal harvest intervals in 2012 & 2013 Albik, Krakow

and OL would produce the most inulin per acre from stems. Of these three, Albik may be the best

choice given its greater inulin stem concentrations, possibly improving extraction efficiency relative

to the other lines.

Table 1: Estimate of relative overall inulin production from stems of various lines harvested during

the end of August/beginning of September.

Variety/Lin

e

Spring Vigor

(1-10) [Inulin] (mg/g)

% Mean

Inulin

Concentratio

n

% Mean

Biomass

% Mean Inulin

Production

NC10-172 6.7 177.4 155.5 60 108

Albik 7.3 154.6 135.5 168 152

HajNowka 8 142.4 124.8 91 108

NC10-65 8 135.1 118.4 100 109

OL 8 120.5 105.6 117 111

NC10-183 4 116.7 102.3 76 89

NC10-18 6.7 114.3 100.2 91 95

Krakow 8.3 97 85.0 219 152

NC10-3 8.7 90.3 79.1 61 70

SW 9 88.5 77.6 115 96

NC10-199 5 77.1 67.6 49 58

NC10-23 7.7 55.2 48.4 55 52

LSD 1.3 25 22 - -

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

JA S

tem

Inu

lin C

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/g)

Days harvested from August 1st

Albik

HajNowka

Krakow

NC10-172

NC10-18

NC10-183

NC10-199

NC10-23

NC10-3

NC10-65

OL

SW

Average

Poly. (Average)

93


Potato variety evaluation for starch production in Manitoba.

Principal Investigators: Canada-Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre

Co-Investigators: Blair Geisel, Darin Gibson and Don Fehr, Gaia Consulting Ltd.



Objective: 1. Identify varieties that might be suitable for starch production in Manitoba

2. Evaluate varieties under Manitoba conditions for production of starch. Contact Information: [email protected]

2013 Project Report

Potato production for starch extraction is a key segment of the potato market in Europe. There,

production is regulated by a quota system and almost 2 million tons of potato starch can be

produced each year from 250,000 hectares producing a harvest of around 10 million tons of starch

potatoes. Europe is the world leader for potato starch, accounting for 80% of global production.

The European potato starch industry consists of 14,000 farmers and 4000 employees in the starch

industry. The key production regions are in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Denmark, Poland

and Sweden due to EU subsidies that support this industry. In North America, potato starch is

mainly extracted from surplus potatoes or potato waste byproduct from French fry potato

processing industry. Contracting potato production specifically for starch production hasn’t been

economically feasible in North America as it is not possible to compete with the subsidized

European starch production. The phasing out of EU subsidies in 2012 will change the economics of

growing potatoes for starch. If potatoes are to be contracted for starch production in Manitoba in

the future, it will be necessary to identify suitable varieties.

Various potato varieties were evaluated in 2013 at CMCDC (table 1). In 2012 a replicated yield

trial was conducted at Carberry. With relative tuber yield of selected varieties well document, in

2013 the trial was reduced to a single replication but varieties were grown in four environments:

Carberry (rain-fed), Southport (rain-fed), and Portage (rain-fed & irrigated). This was done to

better evaluate the effect of environment on starch production and its potential interaction with

variety. Appropriate agronomic practices for potatoes in Manitoba were followed. Disease

observations, tuber yield (total, marketable), specific gravity, and starch content (University of

Manitoba) measurements were taken.

Table 1: Potato varieties evaluated in 2013 for starch production potential in Central Plains region

of Manitoba.

2013


94


Variety/Clone Carberry Rain-

Fed

Southport

Rain-Fed

Portage Rain-

Fed

Portage

Irrigated

Alturas X X X X

Aquilon X X X X

Atlantic X X X X

F07071 (F96015 x

Russette)

X X X X

Lady Rosetta X X X X

Ranger Russet X X X X

Verdi X X X X

Horizon X X X X

Ivory Crisp X X X X

Alpine Russet X X X X

Plots were 4 rows by 12m in length with data collected from 2 centre rows. In 2013 trials were all

planted June 4th

and hilled on June 25th

. Seed spacing and Nitrogen fertilizer is in tables 2.

Table 2: Seed spacing and nitrogen application for potato varieties evaluated in 2013 for starch

production potential in Central Plains region of Manitoba.

2013 N application

(lbs/ac)

Variety/Clone Seed

Spacing

@

Planting

@ Hilling

Alturas 12 65 25

Aquilon 15 65 25

Atlantic 10 65 60

F07071 (F96015 x Russette) 12 65 80

Lady Rosetta 12 65 80

Ranger Russet 12 65 80

Verdi 15 65 60

Horizon 12 65 0

Ivory Crisp 10 65 80

Alpine Russet 12 65 80

Tubers of each variety were submitted to the University of Manitoba, Food Science Department for

analysis of moisture content and total and resistant starch. Tubers were cut into French fry strips

and the centre fry was cut into cubes for moisture and starch analysis. Sample cubes were freeze

dried at -20oC and analyzed for total and resistant starch. Moisture analysis was conducted

according to AOAC methods. The total starch content of potato dry matter was determined based on

AACC- 76-13.01/AOAC 996.11 methods using the Megazyme test kit. For the measurement of

resistant starch AOAC Method 2002.02/ AACC Method 32-40.01 was followed using the

Megazyme test kit.

Tuber Yield

Data was analyzed considering each of the four sites as a replicate (Table 2). Horizon produced the

greatest tuber yield. This variety was new to the trial in 2013 and consistently yielded the most at all

95


four sites (three rain-fed, one irrigated), over 100 cwt/ac more than the next highest yielding variety.

This is despite the fact that this variety received the least nitrogen fertilizer. This supports other

work demonstrating Horizon to be very efficient in its use of Nitrogen and that it grows well in rain

fed situations.

Table 3: Potato tuber yield (cwt/ac) of varieties evaluated in 2013 for starch production potential in

Central Plains region of Manitoba.

Potato Tuber Yield (cwt/ac)

Variety 0-3oz 3-6oz 6-12oz >12oz Total

Atlantic 23.5 108.5 202 85.6 419.6

Verdi 27.5 93.1 146.1 64.9 331.7

Aquilon 16.7 60.3 168.4 64.1 309.4

Horizon 76.5 217.3 217.5 14.9 526.2

Alturas 21 88.4 146.7 51.9 307.9

Ivory Crisp 28.6 86 160.6 43.5 318.6

F07071 14.3 54 189.2 135.2 392.6

Lady Rosetta 57.8 138 129 37.9 362.7

Ranger Russet 19.5 57.9 159.6 114.2 351.2

Alpine Russet 16.9 62.7 219.2 103.3 402

LSD (0.05) 11.1 29.6 40.3 55.7 52.9

CV 25.4 21.1 16 53.7 9.8

Prob(F) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.0032 0.0001

Total and Resistant Starch Production

There was no significant difference between locations for either % total or % resistant starch in

2013, suggesting environment was not an influencing factor in starch production. Variety was

significantly different for both % total and % resistant starch. Dry matter content of potatoes ranged

from 24.2 to 29.4%. The total starch content of potato varieties ranged from 71.8 to 80.8% on dry

matter basis; resistant starch range was 50.8 to 65%. Horizon, Atlantic and F07071 produced the

most starch with 8000+ lbs/ac of total starch. F07071 produced the greatest amount of Resistant

Starch, followed by Horizon (Table 4).

Table 4: Starch production of potato varieties evaluated in 2013 for starch production potential in

Central Plains region of Manitoba.

Variety Specific Gravity

%Dry Matter

Dry Matter (lbs/ac)

% Total Starch

% Resistant

Starch (lbs/ac)

Res Starch (lbs/ac)

Atlantic 1.1061 26.8 10534.6 76.0 56.3 8006.3 5925.7

96


Verdi 1.1173 29.4 8912.2 73.8 54.0 6572.7 4812.6

Aquilon 1.1013 25.7 7459.3 76.0 56.0 5669.1 4177.2

Horizon 1.103 26.1 11579 74.3 52.0 8597.4 6021.1

Alturas 1.0965 24.6 7029.5 71.8 50.8 5043.7 3567.5

Ivory Crisp 1.1041 26.4 7579 77.5 54.0 5873.7 4092.7

F07071 1.1038 26.3 9870 80.8 65.0 7970.0 6415.5

Lady Rosetta 1.1077 27.2 8242.5 72.8 55.8 5996.4 4595.2

Ranger Russet 1.1015 25.8 8459.3 73.3 54.5 6196.4 4610.3

Alpine Russet 1.0949 24.2 9277.7 73.8 55.3 6842.3 5125.9

LSD (0.05) 0 1.1 1358.7 4.675 6.084 63.5 82.7

Further evaluation is necessary to confirm but based on nitrogen efficiency, yield and overall starch

production Horizon is the most likely candidate of those tested for starch production in Manitoba.

Date post:	18-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

CMCDC 2013 ANNUAL REPORT - Province of...

Documents